investigating opportunities for improving sustainability … · 2016. 11. 29. · investigating...

INVESTIGATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING SUSTAINABILITY

OUTCOMES IN POST-DISASTER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE RECOVERY

PROJECTS

Research Study by

Ruwan Weerakoon (B Eng M Eng CPEng RPEQ)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Engineering

Faculty of Science and Engineering

Queensland University of Technology Australia

2016

Source: DTMR Central West Region Flood Damage-2011

QUT Australia - Master by Research Ruwan Weerakoon of 80

ABSTRACT

Civil infrastructure, and in particular, roads in Australia are being devastated with increasing

frequency by natural disasters. Similar situations are also being experienced in other parts of

the world. Responding to such events, and in anticipation of more regular and intense climate-

change induced events in the future, road agencies are reviewing how post-disaster road

infrastructure recovery projects can best be planned and delivered. There is awareness that

rebuilding such infrastructure requires sustainable strategies that address economic,

environmental, and social dimensions. A comprehensive sustainability assessment framework

for pre- and post-disaster situations can minimise negative impacts on communities, the

economy, and environment. Analysing the implications of disruptions to transport networks

and associated services is an important part of the recovery and rehabilitation process

following natural disasters.

Within this context, this research study focused on investigating opportunities for improving

sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects. The research

sought to develop a comprehensive triple bottom line sustainability assessment checklist for

post-disaster management in road infrastructure. The dissertation begins with an overview of

opportunities to improve sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery

projects. A sustainability assessment checklist has been developed with a view to develop

reconstruction strategies for post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects. It is

anticipated that this checklist will contribute to creating safe, efficient, and integrated

transport systems in the wake of disasters that embed sustainable economic, social, and

environmental outcomes. Future research would include piloting this approach with future

projects, and evaluating the end-user experience with regard to the checklist’s utility and other

opportunities for improvement.


Table of Contents Page No

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ 2

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 4

KEYWORDS .......................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS................................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP..................................................................................... 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Research Overview .................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Research Problem .................................................................................................................. 10

1.3 Research Objective and Scope .............................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER 2: PRELIMINARY LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 15

2.1 Sustainability of Post-disaster Recovery Projects ....................................................................... 25

2.2 Sustainability of Roads ............................................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PLAN ........................................ 33

3.1 Research Methodology Stages .............................................................................................. 34

CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................ 37

4.1 Case Study 1 - 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines ...................................................... 37

4.1.1 Details of Post Typhoon Recovery Projects Per Sector ................................................ 42

4.1.2 Issues and Concerns Identified ...................................................................................... 45

4.2 Case Study 2 - 2011 Queensland floods in Australia ............................................................ 49

4.3 Case Study 3 - 2015 Severe Tropical Cyclone Marcia in Central Queensland, Australia .... 53

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................. 61

5.1 Developed Checklist and Implications .................................................................................. 67

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 68

6.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 70

6.2 Opportunities for Research Dissemination ............................................................................ 72

6.3 Significance and Impact of the Research and Contribution to Knowledge ........................... 73

6.4 Future Research Work ........................................................................................................... 74

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 76


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: The relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits (Elkington, 1997) ............................................... 15

Figure 2.2: Sustainability Performance Scorecard (Santos Sustainability Report, 2015) ..................... 18

Figure 2.3: Integrated and Holistic Recovery (Ministry of Civil Defense & Emergency Management, 2005)...................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 2.4: The basic structure of sustainable development concept (Gavrilescu, 2011) ..................... 21

Figure 2.5: Waste Hierarchy (Drstuey, 2006) ....................................................................................... 22

Figure 2.1: Flood damaged roads in Central West Region, Queensland, Australia (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011) ......................................................................................................... 27

Photo 2.2: Open Cut Coal Mines in Biloela, Queensland-Excavated Soil Stockpiles (Photo Credit: Ruwan Weerakoon) ............................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of the research methodology ....................................................... 33

Figure4.1: The Typhoon Recovery Planning Framework (UNDP Philippines, 2014) .......................... 39

Figure 4.2: Queensland State and Department of Transport and Main Roads Strategic Goals ............. 51

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: AGIC developed categories to measure infrastructure projects’ sustainability ................... 17

Table 4.1 Case study 1 issues encountered during the post-disaster recovery phase. ........................... 46

Table 4.2 Key tasks to achieve successful recovery outcomes in the Case Study 3 disaster. ............... 55

Table 5.1 Sustainability Dimensions and Key Elements Targeted in Post-disaster Case Studies ........ 63

Table 6.1: Sustainability Assessment Checklist Elements for Post-disaster Reconstruction Projects .. 69


KEYWORDS

Sustainability Assessment Checklist

Social Sustainability

Economic Sustainability

Environmental Sustainability

Post-disaster Road Recovery Projects

Disaster Risk Reduction

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ARI Average Recurrence Interval

CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DTMR Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland

GIS Geographical Information System

LDCC Local Disaster Coordination Centre

LGU Local Government Units

REPA Restoration of Essential Public Assets

SES State Emergency Services Queensland Australia

NDRRA Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements

QPS Queensland Police Service Australia

SAM Sustainability Assessment Model

UNDP United Nations Development Program


STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

DECLARATION

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for

an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person

except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 28 November 2016

QUT Verified Signature


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I extend my sincere thanks and deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Prof Arun Kumar and Dr

Cheryl Desha, for the continuous support and guidance they provided to me, and for their

patience, motivation, and immense knowledge.

I also wish to express my deep appreciation and thanks to my employers, who provided me

with opportunities to work on post-disaster recovery projects and gather information from

them for the case studies.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my parents, wife, daughter Tia, and son Leo for

supporting me spiritually throughout these years of study, with patience and deep

understanding, despite the time I was away from them undertaking the research development

activities over the last four years. I wish to dedicate this thesis to them.


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Disaster affected countries are dealing with the negative impacts of an unprecedented amount

of natural and manmade disasters, which have caused extensive damage to communities and

key road, rail, ports, and public infrastructure. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones,

and flooding cause destructive damage to the built environment. Reconstruction projects can

take years to repair the damage, and even longer to deliver improved resilience. Therefore, the

objective of this thesis is to investigate opportunities for improving sustainability outcomes in

post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects.

Following a disaster, road authorities need to perform numerous tasks very quickly, and many

of these must be performed simultaneously. It is therefore critical to plan for disaster

recovery, as well as for disaster response. The community cares about how quickly houses

can be rebuilt, how soon the roads can be repaired, and when vital infrastructure will be

replaced. Post-disaster reconstruction projects are therefore subject to compressed timeframes

within an environment of close public scrutiny. Disaster reconstruction relies heavily on

government grants, insurance companies, and donations to fund rebuilding projects. These

funding bodies often attach comprehensive requirements to their funding agreements relating

to time, which can include value for money, compliance within eligibility timeframes, and

progress reporting requirements.

Due to various constraints (time, resources, financial) and political pressures, engineering and

asset management aspects are often ignored when emergent disaster recovery projects are

implemented. This kind of ignorance, in addition to irregularities in road asset recovery

projects results in negative internal and external effects for the community, economy, and

environment.

1.1 Research Overview

Most recovery agencies include disaster risk reduction in their reconstruction policies. Natural

disasters occur frequently around the world, causing great loss of lives and extensive property

damage. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC, 2013) report on extreme weather events, the frequency of natural disasters is

increasing. It is therefore crucial that infrastructure authorities and other agencies involved in

reconstruction learn as much as possible from previous projects they have been involved with;


both their successes and failures. The disaster management institutes in countries that have

faced disasters in the recent past should be scrutinised (Johnson et al., 2013). The easiest form

of fpost-disaster betterment is to adopt disaster-resistant building standards that would

improve the disaster immunity of the infrastructure asset.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2015) in the USA has developed a

national disaster recovery framework that describes the concepts and principles that promote

effective post-disaster recovery assistance. It describes recovery as an opportunity for

communities to rebuild in a manner that reduces or eliminates risk from future disasters and

avoids unintended negative environmental consequences. It highlights the factors of a

successful recovery process, as shown below:

• effective decision-making and coordination;

• integration of community;

• recovery planning processes;

• well-managed recovery;

• proactive community;

• engagement, public participation, and public awareness;

• well-administered financial acquisition;

• organisational flexibility;

• resilient rebuilding (FEMA, 2016).

The recovery process is best described in FEMA (2016) as a sequence of interdependent and

often concurrent activities that progressively advance a community toward a successful

recovery.

Construction of roads and highways should not only be managed with consideration to their

economic significance and efficiency, but also the possible natural disasters and damages

caused by them. Complex prevention measures should be implemented at highways, bridges,

and other objects of motor transport in order to escape the destructive influence of natural

disasters and adverse environmental processes (Gasimova, 2014).

A research paper written by Palliyaguru, Amaratunga, & Haigh (2006) on post Tsunami

projects in Sri Lanka provided relevant information for this research scope. According to that

research report, post-disaster reconstruction processes need to address not only infrastructure


that may have been damaged in the disaster, but also infrastructure that never existed, or

infrastructure that was damaged due to lack of maintenance over years. At the same time,

infrastructure management in a long-term recovery phase must involve measures aimed at the

whole disaster management cycle. Infrastructure design and planning in the post-disaster

period/phase must accomplish remedial solutions to minimise the vulnerability of public

infrastructure assets. Experience increasingly affirms that the post-disaster recovery phase

provides a critical opportunity to introduce measures to reduce future disaster risk through

new physical infrastructure. Infrastructure can both reduce the losses resulting from natural

disasters and facilitate easy post-disaster recovery; thus, more investment in infrastructure

reconstruction is required, while lessening the challenges confronted in the post-disaster

reconstruction phase (Palliyaguru et al., 2006)

This research focuses on investigating opportunities to improve sustainability outcomes in

post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects and makes recommendations for post-

disaster road recovery projects considering sustainable asset management, governance, and

engineering principles that should be followed and adopted in the post-disaster road recovery

sector to maximise sustainability in environmental, social, and economic dimensions. For that

purpose, three natural disaster case studies, two in Queensland, Australia and one in the

Philippines, were studied to determine the common strategies and actions followed to enhance

sustainability outcomes in the post-disaster recovery phase. The outcome of this research will

be a sustainability assessment checklist for post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects.

1.2 Research Problem

Communities, economies, and eco-systems are continually damaged and negatively affected

by natural or manmade disasters. Despite the fact that post-disaster reconstruction is an

inherently long process, there is a competing need for rapid progress and a perception that

speed equals success. An article on building community resilience to natural disasters by the

Council of Australian Governments explained that fundamental to the concept of disaster

resilience is that individuals and communities should be more self-reliant and prepared to take

responsibility for the risks they live with. For a resilient nation, all members of the

community need to understand their role in minimising the negative impacts of disasters, and

have the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities to take appropriate action. A resilient

community would understand and have the ability to use local networks and resources to

support actions required during an emergency and to support recovery efforts.


The aim of post-disaster restoration is to undertake reconstruction, not only to restore the pre-

disaster condition, but also to avoid or mitigate future disasters/risks. The task of

reconstruction after a major disaster event can be an onerous challenge. It requires the

deliberate and coordinated efforts of all stakeholders for effective and efficient recovery of the

affected community. There is a significant difference between post-disaster reconstruction and

normal reconstruction, because post-disaster reconstruction means a disaster has already

occurred in that particular area and that if there was a disaster in that area, the vulnerability

for another disaster in the future in that particular area is very high when compared to a virgin

area. More critically, various methods for assessing sustainability were reviewed to determine

whether they could be useful tools in assessing infrastructure sustainability. While current

methods show individual strengths, all of the methods reviewed are not fully capable of

assessing the current and future challenges of infrastructure sustainability.

Conventional reconstruction efforts have often failed due to a one-sided approach, for

example, one that focuses only on technical or construction aspects and where conventional

reconstruction neglects important social and livelihoods issues that result in a poorer

economic situation for beneficiaries with interrupted social relations. Compared to

conventional reconstruction, sustainable reconstruction is an integrated approach to

reconstruction, and in contrast to conventional reconstruction, environmental, technical,

economic, social, and institutional concerns are considered at each stage and activity of a

sustainable reconstruction programme to ensure the best long-term result, not only in asset

design and construction activities, but also in the provision of related social services (UNEP,

2012)

Following a disaster, the affected communities depend on an effective and efficient recovery

process. Recovery is a complex social process and is best achieved when the affected

community exercises a high degree of self-determination. Recovery extends beyond restoring

physical assets or providing welfare services. Successful recovery recognises that both

communities and individuals have a wide and variable range of recovery needs and that

recovery is only successful when all needs are addressed in a coordinated way. Recovery is a

process that will certainly last weeks and months, but may extend for years and possibly

decades. Organisations involved in recovery will need to recognise the commitment required

for resources (both human and material), as well as the provision of business as usual services


during medium and long term recovery (Recovery Management Director’s Guidelines by

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management in New Zealand, 2005).

Le Masurier, Rotimi, and Wilkinson’s (2006) report explained that disaster management and

the need to develop a resilient community capable of recovering from disasters are of

increasing concern in many countries. The recovery process may present an opportunity for

improvement in the functioning of the community, so that risks from future events can be

reduced while the community becomes more resilient. The effectiveness of the process will

depend on how much planning has been carried out and what contingencies are put in place

prior to the disaster (Le Masurier et al., 2006).

In preparation for disasters, there is often an emphasis on readiness and response, with poor

understanding and little consideration given to the implications of recovery (Angus, 2005).

Experience has shown that recovery is often carried out by modifying routine construction

processes on an ad hoc basis following a disaster. Whilst this can work reasonably well for

small scale disasters, the effectiveness of reconstruction after a major disaster should follow a

checklist or guideline that covers triple bottom sustainability domains.

Sustainability in public infrastructure generally comprises of three dimensions: environment,

social wellbeing, and economy (Shaw, Walters, Kumar, & Sprigg, 2015). To facilitate

sustainable road development, there have been recent initiatives in developing sustainability

assessment schemes or tools comprising of the three dimensions. Some of the important

schemes include Invest (Australia), GreenLITES (USA), and Greenroads (USA). There are

also sustainability assessment schemes that do cover all types of infrastructure, including

roads, for example, AGIC (Australia), Envision (USA), and CEEQUAL (UK). However,

these schemes do not directly cover post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects. Those

commercially developed tools are available for the general infrastructure sustainability

assessment and are not designed for post-disaster road reconstruction projects.

The Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development article (Integrated Research on

Disaster Risk, 2014) explains the indicators of disaster risk reduction actions. These include

measures of public commitment, such as the availability and effective application of

legislation, the level or proportion of annual government spending allocated to disaster risk

reduction, and the integration of disaster risk assessment into private sector development


projects. Moreover, their implementation requires considerable effort and cooperation among

all key stakeholders and between different administrative levels.

According to the literature review undertaken in this thesis, no comprehensive sustainability

assessment checklists or frameworks have been developed for post-disaster road recovery

projects that cover triple bottom line sustainability domains and any other key elements. This

research outcome will embed sustainability in all post-disaster road recovery projects activities

and strategies to maximise economic, social, and environmental benefits, and rebuild and

operate a sustainable road transport system in partnership with key stakeholders in a sustainable

manner.

1.3 Research Objective and Scope

The link between a sustainability agenda and post-disaster reconstruction is gaining

increasing attention. However, little or no literature has discussed opportunities for improving

sustainability outcomes in road construction in a post-disaster recovery context. By

investigating opportunities for improving sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road

infrastructure recovery projects, this research has developed a comprehensive sustainability

assessment check list for post-disaster projects in road infrastructures.

The Australian Nation Building Program (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2013)

highlighted the road networks link to ports, airports, rail, and intermodal connections that

together are of critical importance to national and regional economic growth, development,

and connectivity. Therefore, analysing the implications of a disruption to the transport

network and associated services is an important part of preparing local and regional responses

to the impacts of natural disasters. This research outcome will contribute to post-disaster

planning and management, and enhance the delivery of a safe, efficient, and integrated

transport system that supports sustainable economic, social, and environmental outcomes in

post-disaster situations.

This research demonstrates the gap in sustainability requirements of previous disaster road

recovery projects and will contribute to the development of a sustainability assessment

checklist for future post-disaster road recovery projects. Considering triple bottom line

sustainability domains, an assessment checklist has been developed that can be used to

optimize social benefits from the public infrastructure projects, while minimising avoidable or

unnecessary adverse impacts and their associated costs, over relevant space and time scales.


Three case studies were considered and analysed for the research. This research will be

continued and progressed to the PhD level to develop a sustainability assessment framework

with comprehensive criteria and ratings after consultation and validation by post-disaster

recovery sector experts and key stakeholders.


CHAPTER 2: PRELIMINARY LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review focused on past and recent developments and research published papers

on post-disaster reconstruction and sustainability assessments. According to Oxford

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, (2005) sustainable means “involving the use of natural

products and energy in a way that does not harm the environment”. The environment

dimension is always highlighted over social and economic dimensions in all definitions and

comments on sustainability. The argument is that society is a sub-system of the environment,

and the economy is a sub-system of society. That concept is illustrated below, in Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1: The relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits (Elkington, 1997)

A recent research paper published by Yi and Yang (2014) on Research Trends of Post

Disaster Reconstruction noted that future research should respond to resourcing, integrated

development, sustainability, and resilience building to cover the gaps. It also encourages a

more holistic approach to post-disaster reconstruction research and international

collaborations. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)

identified the following traits as necessary for the future of infrastructure to cater for the

progressive needs of society, including a need for:

• reliable and resilient infrastructure;

• meeting future environmental and security challenges;


• infrastructure development to effectively meet social, environmental, and economic

objectives;

• better life-cycle management;

• better efficiencies through demand management (OECD, 2007).

The United Nations Environment Program further noted that future infrastructure choices

must foster local resilience and global linkages in urban societies (Peter & Swilling, 2012)

and stated that the infrastructure decisions made today will affect the future sustainability of

cities for the medium to long-term. Therefore, post-disaster road recovery projects should be

well planned, managed, and delivered to achieve sustainable outcomes that cover triple

bottom line domains.

The Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) launched the Infrastructure

Sustainability Rating Scheme in March, 2012. The Scheme measures the sustainability of

infrastructure projects across the triple bottom line of economic, environmental, and social

criteria. It evaluates sustainability across design, construction, and operation of infrastructure.

This Scheme can be applied to a broad range of infrastructure types, including roads, bridges,

ports, harbors, airports, energy infrastructure, water storage and supply, communication

transmission, and distribution.

The following Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment Categories are mainly based on

research conducted by the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC, 2011) and present

a brief summary of how to develop infrastructure project sustainability frameworks with the

intent of delivering optimized outcomes.

The categories and sub-categories and associated objectives and intent are provided below in

Table 2.1.


Table 2.1: AGIC developed categories to measure infrastructure projects’ sustainability

Assessment Theme Categories and criteria

1. Project Management & Governance

1.1 Purchase & Procurement

1.2 Reporting & Responsibilities

1.3 Climate Change Vulnerability

1.4 Making Decisions

1.5 Knowledge Sharing & Capacity Building

2. Economic Performance

2.1 Value for Money

2.2 Due Diligence

2.3 Economic Life

3. Using Resources

3.1 Energy Use

3.2 Water

3.3 Material Selection & Use

4. Emissions, Pollution, & Waste

4.1 Greenhouse Gas Management

4.2 Discharges to Air, Water, & Land

4.3 Land Management and Waste Management

5. Biodiversity

5.1 Functioning Ecosystems

5.2 Enhanced Biodiversity

6. People & Place

6.1 Health, Wellbeing, Safety

6.2 Natural & Cultural Heritage Values

6.3 Participatory Processes

6.4 Positive Legacy for Current & Future Generations

6.5 Enhanced Urban & Landscape Design & Aesthetics

6.6 Knowledge Sharing, Shared Intellectual Property

7. Workforce

7.1 Safety, Health & Wellbeing of Workforce 7.2 Capacity Building 7.3 Increased Knowledge of Applied Sustainability 7.4 Equity

These categories and sub categories cover triple bottom sustainability domains and can be

used as criteria for the sustainability assessment. When post-disaster road reconstruction

projects are delivered, these seven elements and their indicators can be accommodated to

achieve a balanced development.


Santos is a leading Australian gas producing and supplying company operating in Australia

and foreign countries. To Santos, sustainability means supplying energy for the future and

positive outcomes for shareholders, employees, business partners, and the communities in

which it operates (Santos Sustainability Report, 2015).

Figure 2.2: Sustainability Performance Scorecard (Santos Sustainability Report, 2015)

According to the Santos Sustainability Performance Scorecard shown in Figure 2.2, the social

sustainability domain has been divided into two parts: “Our People” and “Community”. Each

sector in the four domains has been scored for sustainability performance, and the

performance is compared with previous years with a defined benchmark and colour coding.

Even though Santos report on sustainable energy supply, this kind of performance scorecard

can be used to represent or assess the level of sustainability of infrastructure reconstruction

projects.


A good overview of the process of developing environmental indicators for the transport

sector was provided by Litman (2007; 2011). These reports discuss how sustainability

indicators can be applied to the transport sector.

They describe factors to consider when selecting sustainable transportation indicators,

identify examples of indicators and indicator sets, and provide recommendations for selecting

sustainable transport indicators for use in a particular situation. Recovery management

guidelines published by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management New

Zealand (2005) added important information on post-disaster impacts, as discussed below.

Following a disaster, affected communities depend on an effective and efficient recovery

process. Recovery is a complex social process and is best achieved when the affected

community exercises a high degree of self-determination. Recovery extends beyond restoring

physical assets or providing welfare services. Successful recovery recognises that both

communities and individuals have a wide and variable range of recovery needs and that

recovery is only successful where all needs are addressed in a coordinated way. Recovery is a

process that will certainly last weeks and months, but may extend for years and possibly

decades. Organisations involved in recovery will need to recognise the commitment required

for resources (both human and material), as well as the provision of business as usual services

during medium and long term recovery.

A holistic and integrated framework is required to consider the multi-faceted aspects of

recovery, which when combined, support the foundations of community sustainability (see

Figure 2.3). The framework encompasses the community and the four environments: social,

economic, natural, and built. Recovery activity (the central oval in black) demonstrates the

integration between the community and the four sectors.


Figure 2.3: Integrated and Holistic Recovery (Ministry of Civil Defense & Emergency Management, 2005).

According to Austroads’ (2010) climate change research report, rainfall is a useful climate

series to provide explanations of possible variations in pavement performance. For example,

knowledge of future rainfall patterns can assist in the design of upgrades, or of pavement

drainage, cross falls, selection of pavement material, surfacing, drainage, and storm water

structures, etc. Climate condition, patterns, and trends play a significant role in road

infrastructure performance and predictions of future climate conditions, allowing road

authorities to forecast climate change effects on their road infrastructure.

This Austroads (2010) research project developed a finished software tool that efficiently

extracts climate time series queries of historical data, and simulated scenarios of climate

change patterns and climate data can be fed into deterioration models to compare past

performance and identify future plausible scenarios of performance.

Climate change influences can be seen for the simple case of a pavement deteriorating due to

time, or in the more complex multi-variable models, which may include climate with traffic,

some measure of structural strength, age, pavement type, etc. Another important research

document was published by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2011)

on climate change risks to coastal buildings and infrastructure. According to that report, by

the year 2100, between 26,000-33,000km of roads nationally are potentially at risk from the


combined act of inundation and shoreline recession. It has predicted that a 1.1m sea level rise

may occur in the year 2100, and the replacement value of Queensland roads will be around

$10 billion. Future climate change trends, patterns, and sea level rise should be considered

and accommodated for in the transport planning and design process.

The triple bottom line concept is a political goal of integrated development addressing social,

economic, and environmental complexities. Attainment of this development is identified as

one of the most difficult challenges to date by humanity (Gavrilescu, 2011). When

reconstructing infrastructure after disasters, these objectives are neglected due time and fund

constraints.

Figure 2.4 illustrates the level of sustainability and its related structural elements on

sustainable development.

Figure 2.4: The basic structure of sustainable development concept (Gavrilescu, 2011)

Austroads Pavement Research Group (APRG) (1999) and Australian Asphalt Pavement

Association (AAPA) (2011) published some technical notes and research papers on the reuse

and recycling of road construction materials to reduce non-renewable energy consumption.

This will reduce the size of the environmental foot print generated during the reconstruction

process.


Figure 2.5: Waste Hierarchy (Drstuey, 2006)

Figure 2.5 illustrates the general concept of waste reduction options and choices that can be

made to reduce pollution and waste during human activities that consume resources. This

illustration can be used to minimise pollution and waste in infrastructure reconstruction

activities. This would minimise the demand, use, and impacts on scarce resources such as

water, gravel, rock, lime, and non-renewable energy products (bitumen, asphalt, tar, cutter oil,

emulsions) and allow for innovative solutions with more sustainable outcomes. Some

environmentally friendly options adopted from AAPA pavements training and advisory centre

technical note on sustainability concepts in August 2011 are:

• reduce the use of new materials;

• satisfy residual needs with reused and recycled material;

• material durability to fit asset life cycle (fit for purpose);

• minimise inbuilt redundancy / minimal environmental impacts;

• recyclability / disposability in materials selection;

• include embedded energy aspects in life cycle evaluation;

• perpetual pavements;

• recycled asphalt pavements (RAP);

• warm mix asphalt;

• emulsion based primes, primer seals, and seals;

• use of waste materials (crumb rubber –tyres, fly ash, glass, concrete);

• bitumen stabilized pavements/in situ stabilization of pavement material;


• protection of scarce road surfacing gravel;

• modified binders lower risk for temperature rise and low odour binders;

• use waste engine oil as a pre coating agent for aggregate on road wearing course

surface sealing.

When roads are reconstructed after a disaster, the above mentioned ecological sustainable

construction options can be utilized to minimise and avoid adverse effects to the environment.

Infrastructure networks provide essential services such as water supply, wastewater

collection, transport, and flood protection. Following a disaster, there is pressure to reinstate

these services to pre�disaster levels as quickly as possible, helping to restore some form of

normality to urban life. Reconstruction programmes thus commence in highly uncertain

decision�making environments and necessarily react to perceived, immediate needs. The

extent and nature of the work is then re�evaluated and clarified as projects progress. This

context of post�disaster response presents unique challenges to infrastructure design and

delivery (Kristen, 2015).

This cultural acceptance is supported by the provision of adequate and reliable transportation

funding consistent with fiscal constraints. Legislators and policy makers recognise that a

sustainable funding source is required to meet current mobility needs, while addressing the

unsustainable effects of transportation.

In addition, transportation providers must be able to ensure that investments in transportation

facilities have adequate operation and maintenance funding.

There is growing pressure from governments to be more frugal with the resources consumed

for road construction as noted by T. Wilmot and S. Wilmot (2003):

• reduce or avoid consumption of input materials;

• encourage reuse of material (especially non-renewable resources);

• recycle material that cannot be reused;

• reduce waste send to landfills.

In situ stabilization of soils and pavement materials is one option to assist in conserving these

valuable resources.


A sustainable transportation system will have accountability in the planning process.

Performance measurement and feedback loops will enable planners to learn from past

experiences and fully understand the ramifications of decisions on the components of

sustainability (Transportation Research Board, 2004).

When reconstructing highways, Gasimova (2014) pointed out the hydrogeological factor,

which is normally neglected. Improving rebuilding with enhanced flood immunity would

improve the reliability and connectivity of the road network during flood events.

The only benefit of a disaster is that it provides the opportunity to introduce improvements

into infrastructure and civic amenities, etc. The Urban Development Plan Good Practice Note

issued by the World Bank (2008) stated that the major opportunity to improve quality of life

should be seized. This requires special attention through the strengthening of institutions and

policies, and through the education and building capacity of the local government to develop

and implement Disaster Risk Reduction plans. It is important to ensure that disaster risk

reduction principles and practices are included in the planning and implementation process

(Secretariat, 2012).

The economic benefits of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of infrastructure vary across

the different subsectors. Furthermore, it makes the following recommendations for

infrastructure reconstruction planning and decision making:

• Socio-cultural values of communities in their current location. It is important to

considering the strong sense of place, sense of history, and the community’s emotional

ties to their location. These are best measured intensely in the immediate aftermath and

continuously thereafter through social assessment surveys.

• Geophysical considerations including geo-hazard, geological, and topographical features.

• Logistics and finance considering geographical aspects and cost implications of decisions.

• Timing and sequencing of decisions.

• Social and economic sustainability, considering livelihoods and the abilities of and needs

for economic regeneration.

During the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, different kinds of rubble, waste, ocean floor

sludge, and other materials containing chemical substances were piled up by the tsunami in

addition to the collapse of buildings. The paper originally published in the Journal of the


Japan Medical Association paid attention to the chronic health effects of inhalation of dust or

sludge at post-disaster reconstructions sites. It is anticipated that large quantities of dust

would be generated from these collapsed buildings and rubble during post-disaster

reconstruction.

The research paper published by Chang, Wilkinson, Seville, and Portangaroa (2010)

explained the importance of governance and legislative frameworks on post-disaster recovery.

According to that article, legislation should be enforced in combination with flexible policies

to oversee and provide guidelines for various resourcing issues, such as retail price control for

building materials, natural resource exploitation, financial subsidizing for the affected

population, quality supervision of construction materials and equipment, and applying new

construction standards and materials to rebuilding projects. Policy development to facilitate

resource availability for post-disaster reconstruction requires knowledge regarding possible

vulnerable resources, the breakdown between supply and demand, and likely alternative

resources and transportation methods. To enhance the ability to manage disaster situations,

decision makers at different levels require consistent training and learning to understand and

cope in the post-disaster environment. (Chang et al., 2010)

A post-disaster recovery planning report prepared by Schwab (2014) explained that in order

to achieve the best outcomes, mitigation and recovery should be integrated through effective

planning, as they reinforce each other. Recovery is the least-understood disaster management

phase, and it involves a complex management process that includes not only relief and short-

term restoration of facilities and services, but also intermediate recovery and long-term

redevelopment phases. Recovery requires sustained commitment over time to rebuilding goals

and objectives often formed or articulated after a disaster has occurred. If possible, they

should take place both before and after a disaster. Schwab’s (2014) report discussed lines of

responsibility in post-disaster recovery efforts, and a large amount of valuable time is wasted

after a disaster in determining who will take charge of the reconstruction agenda and how

lines of responsibility for implementing that agenda will be organized.

2.1 Sustainability of Post-disaster Recovery Projects

The planning, design, and construction of road infrastructure projects should be delivered

according to economic, environmental, and ecological sustainability aspects. Comprehensive

designs to cater for future demand and applying current engineering standards for post-

disaster recovery projects are challenges due to limited time and financial constraints.


Reopening a damaged road network with temporary recovery strategies is inevitable with the

political pressures and social demands.

Sustainability is the ability to meet current needs without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet theirs. This concept integrates the economic, societal, and environmental

aspects. Sustainability can also be defined as a way to use a resource so that the latter is not

depleted or permanently damaged. The World Highways (2016) web site article on

sustainable road construction defined sustainability in the road construction sector. The

amount of natural resources such as crude oil, aggregates, or iron core is finite. In this light, it

seems like quite a challenge to achieve sustainability in highway construction; as the latter, by

the nature of its activity, generates lots of energy and consumes a lot of fossil resources. As in

many other sectors, the road construction sector is subject to different types of rating systems,

to assess their endeavours to reach sustainability. A sustainable system of roads does limit

their impact on the environment to a minimum through different sustainable practices. The

goal is to maximise the lifetime of a highway, while restricting its emissions. Amongst the

different construction techniques is the use of recycled materials, the establishment of

ecosystem management, and the implementation of energy reduction actions or stormwater

retrieval systems (World Highways, 2016)

The concept of sustainable development is faced with the challenge to combine ecological,

economic, and social goals into one integrated approach by minimising negative impacts and

making the best and most equitable use of resources (Dreo, 2006). Proper engineering designs

and construction methodologies do play a vital role in achieving all three sustainability

domains. Figure 2.1 demonstrates the engineering intervention required to reinstate damaged

bridges and roads following a disaster.


Figure 2.1: Flood damaged roads in Central West Region, Queensland, Australia (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011)

Project management principles show that scope cost, time, and quality are interrelated. In

disaster reconstruction, the scope of work is defined by the amount of damage caused and the

rules and guidelines that exist for restoration. The costs can be determined through industry

rates and benchmarks and controlled through sound procurement practices. Time is therefore

considered a variable in disaster reconstruction, and it is proposed that the ability to control

and manage time determines the project outcome.

The concept of sustainable development was first put forward by the OECD World

Commission on Environment and Development (the "Brundtland Commission" 1987 "Our

Common Future") and defined as: "Development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Two stages can be identified in reconstruction activity following a disaster, generally referred

to as ‘response’ and ‘recovery’. The response stage is concerned with, among other things,

clearing debris, making damaged structures safe, erecting temporary structures, and restoring


basic levels of transportation, sanitation, communication, and power. The response stage

tends to receive the most attention, both prior to an event in terms of planning, preparation,

and research of the processes; and after an event, in terms of media and general public interest

and expediency of regulatory processes (Le Masurier et al., 2006).

Recovery is an integral part of the comprehensive emergency management process (Sullivan,

2003). It refers to all activities carried out immediately after the initial response to a disaster

situation. This usually extends until the community’s capacity for self-help has been restored.

In other words, the end-state is when the assisted community reaches a level of functioning

where it is able to sustain itself in the absence of further external intervention (Sullivan,

2003).

In promoting sustainable development, the challenge for policy-makers is to reconcile three

objectives (triple bottom line) (Sullivan, 2003):

1. Securing higher standards of living through economic development;

2. Protecting and enhancing the environment;

3. Ensuring an equitable distribution of the benefits within the present generation and

between present and future generations.

However, in the past, few post-disaster reconstructions have had an entire sustainability-

oriented evaluation conducted. The reasons for this are insufficient financial and time

resources reserved for such a task, lack of information and data availability, missing expertise,

and an often low level of awareness within authorities and the public.

Following the 2011 flood damage to the Queensland road network, Emergency Management

Queensland was under pressure to reconstruct the road network according to current

engineering standards rather than rectify the damages to bring the road back to its existing

condition. Sustainability in infrastructure engineering and asset management empower all

three triple bottom domains and is the integrating dimension of infrastructure sustainability.

Disaster management and the need to develop a resilient community capable of recovering

from disasters are of increasing concern in many countries. The recovery process may present

an opportunity for improvement in the functioning of the community, so that risks from future

events can be reduced while the community becomes more resilient. The effectiveness of the


process depends on how much planning has been carried out and what contingencies are put

in place prior to the disaster (Le Masurier et al., 2006).

In preparation for disasters, there is often an emphasis on readiness and response, with poor

understanding and little consideration given to the implications of recovery. Experience has

shown that recovery is often carried out by modifying routine construction processes on an ad

hoc basis following a disaster.

2.2 Sustainability of Roads

“Sustainability is the next great game in transportation. The game becomes serious when you

keep score” Greenroads (2011).

In the event of a natural disaster, road infrastructure appears to be one of the development

sectors with the greatest losses and damages. On one hand, even though road infrastructure

plays an important role in accelerating the recovery process, post-disaster reconstruction of

road infrastructure has not been adequately determined and has frequently been ignored by

many aid agencies placing an extra burden on the community as it adds delays to the recovery

process. On the other hand, aid agencies working on the reconstruction of road infrastructure

may face issues that are unique, in context and scale, to post-disaster project in developing

countries (Hayat & Amaratunga, 2011)

During the road reconstruction process, sourcing gravel material is a challenging and costly

procurement process. Huge soil stock piles are available in Australia from open cut coal

mines and most excavated soil is suitable to use as structural layers in road pavement. Those

stock piles are rehabilitated and re-vegetated and become manmade mountains. Figure 2.2

shows the soil stockpiles in open cut coal mines that may be used as a road construction

material.


Photo 2.2: Open Cut Coal Mines in Biloela, Queensland-Excavated Soil Stockpiles (Photo Credit: Ruwan Weerakoon)

Government organizations, coal mines, and road authorities can have a pre-arranged

agreement to use open cut mines’ gravel stock piles for road reconstruction activities in a

disaster situation. Required tests, environmental permits, and access can be organized in

preparation before disasters occur to avoid any environmental and legislative conflicts.

The Transportation Research Board (2004) in the USA published a conference paper on

Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. It explains that current

trends in transportation contribute to unsustainable conditions, including climate change,

energy insecurity, congestion, noise pollution, and ecological impacts. It identified the below

mentioned sustainability issues in the transport sector. The negative impacts of the

transportation system include congestion; fatalities and injuries; noise, air, and water

pollution; greenhouse gas emissions; diminishing energy resources; and biological and

ecosystem damage. These negative effects can be minimised with integration sustainability

into the transportation planning process.

A sustainable transportation system requires a culture that not only sees sustainability as

desirable, but also accepts the inclusion of sustainability concepts in the transportation

planning process and supports the tough decisions necessary to make sustainability a priority.

The public and policy makers in this culture will understand and consider potential solutions,

such as integrated land use and transportation and innovative public transportation.

A significant amount of studies have been performed by researchers into the importance of

and challenges faced in the development of road transport infrastructure. However, little or no

literature discusses the challenges or performance of road construction in a post-disaster


recovery context. Many studies have shown that improvement in road transport infrastructure

may provide positive impacts to the community in various ways. Craft (2009) suggested that

increased market agglomeration, productivity, and labour supply resulting from reduced

transport costs may create economic development opportunities for the community.

Accordingly, improvement of road networks in particular may provide positive impacts to the

community due to better trade, communication, and economic and social growth, as well as

increased international competitiveness. It appears that the speed, flexibility, and accessibility

of road transport in reaching virtually all points and in connecting other means of transport

systems remain important and distinct characteristics of road networks compared with other

means of transport.

Road transport is an essential element of the Australian transport network and enabler of the

economy. Australia relies heavily on road transport due to the large area and low population

density in regional and remote parts of the country.

Another reason for the reliance upon roads is that the Australian rail network has not been

sufficiently developed for many of the freight and passenger requirements in most areas of

Australia. This has meant that goods that would otherwise be transported by rail are moved

across Australia via road trains.

Road infrastructure with a total paved length of 69 million km (CIA, 2012) has been

considered one of the most extensive infrastructure assets in the world. The construction,

operation, and maintenance of road networks have multi-facet impacts on the environment,

economy, and the surrounding community. To be sustainable, all of these phases of an

infrastructure project must be guided by the principles of sustainable development (Lim,

2009). As a result, the sustainability issue of roads is a growing concern relating to the

attainment of a sustainable economy.

The sustainability aspect of road networks has two key challenges related to climate change.

One is the reduction of emissions from roads to minimise the progression of climate change,

and the second is to preserve roads from the impact of a changing climate (INVEST, 2011).

Different phases of road infrastructures have significant sustainability implications (Santero,

Masanet, et al., 2011; Stripple, 2001). Sustainable development of road assets is, therefore, a

growing international concern (Soderlund, Muench, Willoughby, Uhlmeyer, & Weston,

2008).


Litman (2011) listed various transport planning objectives that support sustainability goals:

transport system diversity, system integration, affordability, resource efficiency, efficient

pricing and prioritization, land use accessibility, operational efficiency, and comprehensive

and inclusive planning.

Road projects involve considerable land use, high energy input, and huge resource

consumption. These elements may cause serious impacts to the environment and social

dislocation. In addition, there are road characteristics, for example, slopes, curves, pavement

stiffness, surface unevenness, surface texture, etc., and traffic congestion due to road works

that impact fuel consumption patterns, and hence, emission levels (Lepert & Brillet, 2009).

The relevant conventional “environmental factors” are biodiversity, pollution prevention, air

and water quality, habitat and species protection, land use, and visual amenity. However, over

the years, new “environmental factors” such as impact on communities now and in the future,

climate change considerations, efficient resource use, source of materials, whole of life

considerations, waste management, and future proofing have emerged, which implies a

growing and complex boundary of the sustainability concept (Griffiths, 2007). Conventional

environmental assessments often overlook this complexity, leading to conclusions based on

incomplete study. As a consequence, the development of a comprehensive life cycle

assessment (LCA) framework for road projects has been emphasized to facilitate the

identification of improved sets of sustainability indicators for the environment component

(Chan et al., 2011; Santero, Masanet, et al., 2011 Soderlund, 2008; Stripple, 2001,). It is

acknowledged that a LCA can generate comprehensive and scientifically defensible strategies

for lowering emissions, reducing waste, and minimising energy, water, or natural resource

consumption (Santero, Loijos, et al., 2011).

Investments in infrastructure should be approached from a wider perspective of regional or

national networks and systems.

Reconstruction of roads should not be seen in segmented isolation, but rather in the context of

a transportation network that connects local communities to a larger district and provincial

network, providing access to broader markets and social services. Strong coordination

between different development partners strengthens the overall impact of a reconstructed

transportation network.


CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PLAN

The objective of this research was to investigate opportunities for improving sustainability

outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects and to develop a sustainability

assessment checklist for post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects. A comprehensive

sustainability assessment framework for pre- and post-disaster situations would minimise the

negative impact on communities, the economy, and environment. This research will be

continued and progressed to PhD level research to develop a sustainability assessment

framework with comprehensive criteria and ratings after consultation and validation by post-

disaster recovery sector experts and key stakeholders. There were six stages to this research,

and the fifth and sixth stages can be continued to develop the above mentioned sustainability

assessment framework.

Figure 3.1 demonstrates the research methodology steps.

Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of the research methodology

Three case studies were considered and analysed for this research study. The Queensland

flood disaster that occurred in early 2011, and Cyclone Marcia in 2015 were considered

Australian case studies for this research. The typhoon calamity in the Philippines in 2013 was

considered as an overseas case study.

Stage 1-Literature

review and

research plan

• Australia and

world wide

publications

• Publish conference

papers

Stage 2- Gather

case study data

• Transport

reconstruction

projects after

Queensland flood

damage in 2011

and Cyclone

Marcia 2015 in

Fitzroy Region

• Reconstrction

prrojects data after

typhoon calamity

in Philippines in

2013

Stage 3- Analyse

and review post-

disaster recovery

projects delivery

strategies and

benefits

• Social benefits

• Environmental

impacts

• Economic benefits

Stage 4-

Investigating

opportunities for

improving

sustainability

outcomes in post-

disaster road

infrastructure

recovery projects

and developing a

sustainability

assessment

checklist

considering triple

bottom line

sustainability

domains

Stage 5-

Assessment,

verification and

validation the

checklist using

the Delphi

technique

Stage6- Develop a

sustainability

assessment

framework with

comprehensive

criteria and

ratings after

consultation and

validation by

post-disaster

recovery sector

experts and key

stakeholders.


Restoration of essential public assets in Queensland, Australia is funded and administered by

the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) and research data gathered from Queensland

Reconstruction Authority is available for the public.

The QRA was established in February 2011 following the 2010–2011 flooding in Queensland

and still exists. It is a state-level statutory authority established by the state parliament and has

broad authority to decide recovery priorities, work closely with communities, collect

information about property and infrastructure, share data with all government levels,

coordinate and distribute financial assistance, realize the board’s strategic priorities, and

facilitate flood mitigation.

3.1 Research Methodology Stages

The first two stages of this research gathered the existing information and case study data and

the following stages analysed the collected data related to disaster recovery projects. The case

study data was structured to assess the sustainability level of the strategies used for disaster

recovery road infrastructure projects. Information was also gathered on sustainability criteria

used for road reconstruction projects after disasters to develop a sustainability assessment

framework for future post-disaster road infrastructure projects. The Delphi technique was

used in last two stages to verify and validate the sustainability criteria and indicators, and this

will be continued and progressed to PhD level research to develop a sustainability assessment

framework with comprehensive criteria, indicators, and ratings following consultation and

validation by post-disaster recovery sector experts and key stakeholders.

Stage 1 - Literature review and research plan

The literature review provided similar tools and frameworks developed to assess the triple

bottom line domains’ sustainability during the development and construction of infrastructure

projects. Some or all of the parts of these tools were considered and investigated for use in

improving the sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects.

Four research conference papers regarding the research plan have also been published and

presented to the post-disaster reconstruction industry and academia experts and feedback was

received regarding the research development and verification of the outcome.


Stage 2 - Gathering of case study data

The damage resulting from the Queensland floods in 2011 and the 2015 cyclone damaged

road recovery projects in the Fitzroy Region data comprised the two Australian case studies,

and post-disaster road reconstruction project data from DTMR (2011) and Queensland

Reconstruction Authority (2016) was used for this research. A foreign case study of the 2013

typhoon calamity in the Philippines was also undertaken.

The necessary approval and permission was obtained from the Department of Transport and

Main Roads to gather the required Fitzroy region flood recovery information for the research

study.

Stage 3 - Analyse and review post disaster road reconstruction delivery strategies,

impacts for triple bottom line sustainability domains, and benefits

Case study data were analysed to assess the sustainability level of the strategies used for

disaster recovery road infrastructure projects. Information on sustainability elements used for

road reconstruction projects following the disasters was also determined and verified.

Stage 4 - Investigate opportunities for improving sustainability outcomes in post disaster

road infrastructure recovery projects and develop a sustainability assessment checklist

considering triple bottom line sustainability domains.

According to the project delivery strategies identified in the three case studies analysed, a

checklist with sustainability elements was created, and this checklist has been shared and

communicated with research and post-disaster recovery industry experts through published

research papers and presentations.

Stage 5 - Assessment, verification, and validation of the checklist using the Delphi

technique

The Delphi technique is ‘a method for structuring a group communication process so that the

process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex

problem’ (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 3). Furthermore, it is ‘a method for the systematic

solicitation and collation of judgments on a particular topic through a set of carefully

designed sequential questionnaires interspersed with summarized information and feedback

of opinions derived from earlier responses’. It is most frequently used to integrate the


judgment of a group of experts. The Delphi technique was therefore used for the assessment,

verification, and validation process in stages 5 and 6 of this research study.

Stages 5 and 6 will be continued as PhD level research to fine tune and validate the checklist

and derive a framework with criteria and indicators from the sustainability assessment

checklist developed in this research.

During stage 5, the questions were designed and the responses summarised, leading to the

preparation of the questions for subsequent phases. The respondents independently generated

their ideas in answer to the first questionnaire and returned them. The researcher then

summarized the responses to the first questionnaire and developed a feedback report, along

with the second set of questionnaires for the respondent group. Having received the feedback

report, the respondents independently evaluated their earlier responses. Respondents were

asked to independently vote on priority ideas included in the second questionnaire and e-mail

their responses back to the researcher. The researcher then developed a final summary and

feedback report to the respondent group and interested parties for verification and validation.

The list of experts were identified from government road authorities, agencies, and the private

sector who were involved in post-disaster road recovery projects. After consulting local

governments, state road authorities, and road construction companies/consultants a

respondent group was formed that consisted of project managers, engineers, environmental,

cultural heritage and community support officers, financial planners, transport operators,

safety officers, and other professionals who were involved in post-disaster road reconstruction

projects. The initial questionnaire was then developed and distributed to the respondent group

and the Delphi technique was used to validate and fine tune the sustainability assessment

checklist. The framework was finalized following the assessment, verification, and validation

process using the Delphi technique.

Stage 6 - Develop a sustainability assessment framework with comprehensive criteria

and ratings after consultation and validation by post-disaster recovery sector experts

and key stakeholders.

This stage is explained in detail in Section 6.4 - Future Research Work.


CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES

As described in the research methodology, three case studies were considered for this

research. Data were gathered from two natural disaster case studies from Queensland,

Australia and one typhoon calamity from the Philippines.

The researcher has worked as an infrastructure advisor/construction project manager for

public infrastructure reconstruction projects in Queensland, Australia and foreign countries

following disasters. The engineering knowledge and skills he has gained within his studies

and research have been blended with disaster risk reduction field experience, and he received

the opportunity to undertake this research study as a part time researcher, whilst he worked

full time for the post-disaster reconstruction projects chosen as case studies.

All of the case studies were analysed in terms of the sustainability of the project outcomes

covering triple bottom line sustainability domains and the below discussed sub categories.

Checklist themes and sub categories were extracted from all three of the case studies

considered.

4.1 Case Study 1 - 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines

Typhoon Haiyan, known as Super Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines, was one of the

strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, and it devastated portions of Southeast Asia,

particularly the Philippines, on November 8, 2013. It is the deadliest Philippine typhoon on

record, killing at least 6,300 people in that country alone. Haiyan is also the strongest storm

recorded at landfall.

The Philippine Government and UNDP requested further technical assistance from Australia

to work at both the national and local level. The researcher was employed by the Department

of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) for six months and worked with United Nations

Development Program (UNDP) Philippines as a Municipal Infrastructure Adviser.

The researchers duties and responsibilities during this humanitarian assistance deployment on

behalf of Australian Government were:

• Support the rehabilitation and restoration of municipal infrastructure recovery projects.

• Promote and include gender quality, disability inclusive development and ending gender

based violence through proper planning, designing and implementation stages of post-

disaster recovery projects.


• Technical capacity building of municipal/local government engineers and transfer and

share engineering knowledge, skills, and experience with engineering teams in

municipalities.

• Work closely with the Department of Public Works and Highways in the Philippines to

ensure the effective development of plans and programmes of the transport infrastructure

cluster based on the Post-disaster Needs Analysis and build back a better concept.

• Provide strategic planning advice and engineering assistance for future public

infrastructure requirements in municipalities and promote sustainable public infrastructure

asset management strategies.

• Provide planning, engineering, and project management assistance for municipal public

infrastructure reconstruction projects, including community evacuation centres,

multipurpose community buildings, hospitals, schools, ferry terminal expansion, and other

transport infrastructure assets.

• Provide engineering inputs for reconstruction projects to improve community safety and

wellbeing.

The researcher was embedded with municipal authorities in the Philippines to augment their

technical capacity to provide leadership in coordination and recovery planning and

implementation.

The researcher worked within the UNDP to provide advisory and technical support to local

government authorities and UNDP on infrastructure sector activities. The researcher also

worked closely with other government departments (Department of Public Works and

Highways) and key stakeholders to ensure the effective delivery of post-disaster

reconstruction projects. All three economic, environmental, and social sustainability aspects

were covered, with more gravity given to social sustainability aspects, as the typhoon

destroyed the social fabric of the affected area.

The recovery planning process adopted the UNDP Philippines (2014) recovery planning

framework (see Figure 4.1), which takes into consideration shelter, social services, economy

(livelihoods), infrastructure, and environment sectors.


Figure4.1: The Typhoon Recovery Planning Framework (UNDP Philippines, 2014)

Land use and good governance also integrate the four key sectors. Land use plays a vital role

in disaster risk reduction and the comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) is an output of this

recovery planning framework. Good governance provided special procurement guidelines and

policies established to respond to the typhoon disaster. Under good governance, project

specific operational structures and management structures were also used to effectively

deliver the restoration projects.

Donors and host government agencies had responsibilities to the affected community beyond

just the reconstruction of damaged assets. Therefore, the UNDP Typhoon Recovery Unit in

the Philippines provided guidelines for post-disaster sustainability evaluation as mentioned

below:

Basic human needs:

• nutrition, shelter, clothes;

• education, health, means of transportation and communication, safety;

• belongingness, creativity, identity, autonomy, spirituality;

• togetherness, participation;

• self�fulfilment;

• realization of potential (UNDP Philippines, 2014).


Need for social sustainability

Donors and UNDP gave greater priority to social sustainability to resettle the internally

displaced personnel through employment generation and community based projects, as this

could employ the most vulnerable and disadvantageous community groups in the affected

region. For minor communities, women and widows were mainly employed as unskilled

labourers and disabled educated people were employed as supervisors. Community based

projects generated employment for the affected people in that area and gave a sense of

ownership and positively affected sustainability in all three domains. Employment generation

promoted displaced people to resettle in their new places and money earned from their work

helped to start their new settlements and resume livelihoods.

UNDP Philippines (2014) gave serious consideration to the below factors related to social

sustainability:

• social norms, community cohesion for mutual benefit;

• connectedness between groups of people;

• cultural plurality;

• solidarity;

• tolerance, respect, compassion, patience, and honesty;

• discipline;

• commonly shared rules, laws, and information;

• equity across gender, age, religions;

• human rights;

• peace;

• participation in decision�making about planned interventions that affect people’s lives;

• justice, accountability, politics;

• self�reliance/dependency: specifically, mobilization of communities, local ownership in

decision making, commitment of local resources.

Needs for economic sustainability

Donors wanted to distribute money to the typhoon affected vulnerable communities and

community labour intensive projects using hand tools accomplished this well. Donors were

happy to fund the projects, as 70% of the project cost money was distributed among the

employees as wages and allowances, within those quick impact community projects. Many


UN organisations and international organisations began infrastructure recovery and

humanitarian projects all over the region.

UNDP (2014) gave serious consideration to the below factors related to economic

sustainability:

• economic benefits to impactees and stakeholders;

• reduced need for external assistance;

• allocation of financial resources;

• efficiency;

• scale of consumption;

• preventive anticipation;

• cost�effectiveness under consideration of unduly costs;

• paying for past ecological debt;

• optimizing productivity;

• use of human, natural, and financial capital.

Needs for environmental sustainability

UNDP designed labour intensive debris/waste collection projects only used hand tools and

basic equipment for debris and waste disposal activities following the typhoon. The solid

waste/debris in the town area was collected and disposed of over a six month project duration

and following the project completion, the council responsible for waste collection continued

the solid waste management program. Project outcomes and deliverables provided a good,

pleasant, clean environment while improving public health and road safety and community

wellbeing.

As the local impacted people of the town received employment opportunities from this

debris/waste collection project, they now had a sense of ownership of the pleasant

environment they had made. Through community awareness meetings on solid waste

management and health, the community achieved knowledge, skills, and attitudes to ensure an

environmentally friendly life style. By implementing these projects, the sanitation condition

was improved with less risk of an outbreak of public health epidemics. The town was also

cleaned and the streets aesthetically improved.


UNDP Philippines (2014) gave serious consideration to the below factors related to

ecological sustainability:

• water, land, air, minerals, eco�system services;

• environmental soundness of the intervention, its intended and unintended outcomes and

impacts;

• waste emissions within the assimilative capability of the environment without damaging

it;

• ecological balance and biodiversity;

• balance in consumption/recycling of resources;

• disaster risk reduction;

• irreversible loss of species biodiversity, habitat, ecosystem.

Typhoon affected areas were developed with a comprehensive set of projects based on the

gaps and needs for each of the five key sectors, taking into consideration its core drivers as a

livable city. The environment sector was included owing to the importance of the

environment in maintaining the sustainability of the projects and city development as a whole.

The sets of projects for each sector were peer reviewed during the planning process to

ascertain the actual need for each project.

The below post typhoon recovery sector information was gathered from the UNDP

Philippines (2014) sectoral need assessment report prepared for recovery projects delivered

by the researcher.

4.1.1 Details of Post Typhoon Recovery Projects Per Sector

The recovery and rehabilitation plan created projects implemented across five different

sectors. The Overall Recovery Goal was “Rebuilding liveable cities as safer, more disaster-

resilient agriculture and commerce-driven cities” (UNDP Philippines, 2014). The intents of

the recovery policy were agreed between key stakeholders, donors, and communities.

Key Recovery Policy Intents:

• The capacity and function of areas subject to natural disasters are protected from

incompatible development.


• Buildings and structures are designed, located, and constructed to withstand the impacts of

disasters.

• Development directly or indirectly and cumulatively avoids an increase in water flow

velocity or flood level.

• Development does not allow the release of hazardous materials into floodwaters.

• Development has safe access to the most appropriate urban centre during a disaster.

• Community infrastructure is protected from and able to function effectively, during and

immediately after a disaster event, (e.g. emergency services located within the 500 year

ARI).

• Precautionary approach for uses that must be maintained during a disaster event (UNDP

Philippines, 2014).

The recovery and rehabilitation of typhoon affected cities were guided by the two core drivers

that could jumpstart and sustain the recovery efforts: agriculture and commerce. Programs

and projects identified through the planning process, especially those pertaining to livelihood

and infrastructure for livelihood-support, were formulated with the vision and these core

drivers in mind, in order to link the proposed projects to the overall development of the

region.

4.1.1.2 Shelter/Resettlement Sector

The goal was “To provide a safe, climate-change resilient and permanent home for every

family affected by typhoon and may be affected by future disasters” (UNDP Philippines,

2014).

Description of the sector

The shelter/resettlement sector was given the mandate to provide immediate technical

assistance to disaster victims before and after the occurrence of disasters following existing

standards, rules, and guidelines, and ensuring a systematic and orderly management of the

rights of internally displaced people. The sector also aims to provide temporary refuge to

individual families who are potentially at risk or in actual danger because of the hazard.

(UNDP Philippines, 2014).

4.1.1.3 Social Sector Projects

The goals are:


• To rehabilitate and restore basic social services and make them fully available and readily

accessible to the general populace of typhoon affected region.

• To efficiently deliver basic social services to the disadvantaged families in order to

promote their level of well-being. (UNDP Philippines, 2014).

Description of the Social Sector

The social sector covered the basic social services provided by the city in the form of health,

social welfare services, education, and protective services. Its clientele includes the general

populace of the affected region but also focuses on the following disadvantaged/ marginalized

sector of the society: (UNDP Philippines, 2014).

• Vulnerable groups (women, children and youth, senior citizen, persons with disabilities);

• Informal settlers;

• Internally displaced people.

4.1.1.4 Livelihood (Economic) Sector

The goals were (UNDP Philippines, 2014).:

• To restore the economic activities of the city to an improved pre-disaster condition.

• To provide a competitive business environment for new investments and emerging

markets.

• To restore agricultural productivity of farmers who were victims of the disaster.

• To provide training on alternative livelihood and entrepreneurship and improve product

development and market linkages to support micro-, small, medium enterprises

(MSMEs).

Description of the Livelihood (Economic) Sector

The economic sector consists of the agricultural and business/commerce subsectors, the core

drivers of the typhoon affected region. The agricultural sector provides services to farmers

that include inputs, support facilities, technical assistance, and market development in

coordination with other government and non-government sectors. On the other hand, the

business sector provides a competitive business environment for MSMEs in services, retail,

finance, and other OFI, including transport and other tourism services. MSMEs comprise of

about 99% of the total number of businesses in the region. (UNDP Philippines, 2014).


4.1.1.5 Infrastructure Sector

The goals were:

“To restore, reconstruct, and build back better all infrastructure projects damaged by

Typhoon Yolanda towards a sustainable development with better principles of a more efficient

delivery of services to the public”

Description of the Infrastructure Sector

The Infrastructure Sector was responsible for the formulation and implementation of all

infrastructure projects (water, roads and bridges, public buildings) based on standard plans

and specifications in accordance with the latest structural and/or building codes. (UNDP

Philippines, 2014).

4.1.1.6 Environment Sector

Goals:

“To support the recovery process through solid waste management program as well as

climate change adaptation measures focusing on the restoration of our watershed being the

vital lifelines of the region”

Description of Sector

For the post typhoon recovery process, the environment sector aims to implement climate

adaptation measures through the: (UNDP Philippines, 2014).

• preservation of potable water supply of the region;

• implementation of an efficient solid waste management program;

• reforestation.

4.1.2 Issues and Concerns Identified

The United Nations Development Programme and Philippines Government identified that one

of the major challenges of infrastructure reconstruction is balancing the costs of alternative

strategies to reinstate infrastructure services with long-term development benefits. The

tension between the speed of recovery and deliberation on how to make improvements is

ubiquitous to the reconstruction process. The pressure to restore services as quickly as

possible limits the ability to consider wholesale changes to infrastructure networks.

Reviewing environmental-based initiatives moves into the realm of what may be viewed as

the grassroots of sustainability thinking. For infrastructure, the essence of the ‘environmental’


theme of sustainability assessment is about understanding the overall impact of resource use

in a project, reducing material use, eliminating waste, and general environmental impact.

The underlying causes for increasing disaster vulnerability, both in a pre- and post-disaster

situation are essentially linked to the existing social, economic, and political context, and

existing policy approaches for managing disasters.

Other influences, such as politics and the media, place additional pressure on the need for the

speed in post-disaster recovery. Following the typhoon disaster, there was an immediate

community need for essential infrastructure to be returned to a safe and operational state

within the shortest possible timeframe. Table 4.1 discusses the issues encountered during the

post-disaster recovery phase.

Table 4.1 Case study 1 issues encountered during the post-disaster recovery phase.

Issue/Concern Possible options/suggestions and remarks

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) mainstreaming on recovery plans and comprehensive land use plans (CLUP)

DRR will be identified and mainstreamed through grassroots level consultation and participation at the regional and community level.

Capacity building for local government units (LGU)/municipalities on DRR

LGU officers who are involved with DRR are to be trained by community leaders and disaster management agents.

Geographical information system (GIS) capacity building for local government units

Most LGUs do not have GIS capacity, software, hardware, and training required. GIS capacity is a vital component of DRR mapping/land use mapping.

Waste management and pollution There is no proper waste management system functioning in cities and municipalities. High level of pollution and health risks. Implement community awareness programs and support to municipalities to implement efficient and environmental friendly waste management strategies. Introducing recycling methods and private sector participation.

There are many under and unemployed poor people in community levels that are affected by the Yolanda Typhoon

Cash for work community infrastructure projects can create employment opportunities for those vulnerable people, empower people, and build their financial capacity

There are many typhoon affected families at community level who do not have basic and essential sanitation facilities

Basic sanitation facilities can be supplied under community based infrastructure projects.

Disaster warning system and community awareness

More community level preparedness training required and facilities/evacuation systems to be established.

Traffic and road safety Traffic law enforcement and engineering interventions required to improve the level of


service.

Pollution control through reconstruction

Avoid or minimise adverse impacts to soil, water, and air through reconstruction projects. Reuse of material and maximise benefits through existing structures.

Community infrastructure has different resilience requirements and levels of immunity

according to its function and purpose. A higher level of disaster immunity is required for key

critical community infrastructures that provide essential civic services in emergencies and

disasters, for example, emergency services - 500 year ARI, fire and police stations - 200 year

ARI, hospitals - 500 year ARI, power stations - 500 year ARI. The UNDP Phillipines (2014)

designs used the 200 year ARI level as a risk management tool, requiring higher levels of

regulation for critical community infrastructure.

Reconstruction presents both opportunities and challenges to incorporating sustainability

principles into decisions. The post-disaster environment is perceived to provide a window of

opportunity for improvement that would otherwise not have been possible under business as

usual development. However, it is highly challenging to address the short-term pressure to

reinstate services while also considering long-term social, environmental, and economic

issues. (UNDP Philippines, 2014).

The following were the key lessons:

• Accurate records of land ownership, infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water

supply systems, etc.) need to be maintained so as to provide a baseline for damage

assessment when disaster strikes.

• Measures should be implemented to minimise the loss of communications in the event of

a disaster, for example, telecommunications equipment and essential facilities should be

housed in pre-fabricated accommodation or quake-proof buildings. Fixed line networks

should be kept to a minimum with more use of GSM and wireless loop technologies.

• Provisions should be made to ensure effective communication between affected areas and

those coordinating the disaster response. Portable GSM setups should be maintained at

national level for speedy deployment in disaster zones. Spare equipment such as switches,

satellite phones and MW links should be readily available to support emergency rescue

and relief efforts. In emergency conditions, detailed documentation and everyday standard

operating procedures (SOPs) should be relaxed to avoid unnecessary delays in relief

operations.


• The permanent disaster management authority should have a dedicated disaster

communication wing.

• A cadre of engineers and other technical personnel should be identified and trained in

disaster response operations, for example, road clearance, bridge reconstruction.

• Contingency plans should be made for the restoration of infrastructure, communications,

and other services in the event of a disaster.

• No census data on buildings and people living in major cities.

• A shortage of equipment to remove debris or for road-clearing and establishing temporary

bridges.

• Lack of back-up systems for electricity supply, telecom, and water supply and water

purification units.

• Difficulties in ensuring the security of property of affected people.

Lying within the Pacific Typhoon Belt and Pacific Ring of Fire, the Philippines as a whole is

one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. The socioeconomic conditions of the

local community further exacerbate their exposure to such hazards and limit their coping

mechanisms. Recovery measures did address challenges to emergency response, given that

emergency and development assistance was hampered by reduced access and communication.

Recovery projects also ensured that the community experienced minimal impact on its critical

infrastructure, including public buildings, educational facilities, health facilities, water supply

and distribution systems, and power facilities. It also focused on including/integrating region

in overall development, as well as the holistic development of new areas, including road

networks, other infrastructure and utilities. Infrastructure recovery served to support activities

of other sectors, such as tourism and trade and resettlement. (UNDP Philippines, 2014).

Lessons for future post-disaster reconstruction of infrastructure:

• Strong coordination is a critical success factor in any reconstruction effort.

• A strong working relationship with government is also critical for a successfully

coordinated response.

• A phased approach allows a balance between the speed of the response and the quality of

the investment.

• It is essential that the management structure of a reconstruction program has the required

authority and flexibility to make necessary adjustments to project concepts.

• Technical assistance is critical to support a flexible financing facility.


• Involving local government in the project planning and implementation processes

enhances their capacity.

• Investments are likely to be more sustainable when matched to local ability or a

willingness to finance operations and maintenance.

4.2 Case Study 2 - 2011 Queensland floods in Australia

Towards the end of 2010 and in the early months of 2011, the State of Queensland suffered

devastating floods. Resulting from a series of heavy rains, followed by category 5 Cyclone

Yasi, the floods caused dozens of casualties, the evacuation of over 70 towns, and an excess

of $15 billion in damages and losses. The events washed away roads and railways, destroyed

crops and brought Queensland’s $20 billion coal export industry to a near halt, making the

flooding one of Australia’s most expensive natural disasters. The estimated reduction in

Australia's GDP is about $40 billion. Three-quarters of the council areas within the state of

Queensland were declared disaster zones. A lack of resources for post-disaster reconstruction

significantly limited the prospects for successful fast recovery. Disaster mitigation measures

were taken after the flood disaster aimed at decreasing or eliminating its impact on society,

the economy, and the environment.

Considering the huge scope of the damage and recovery activities, for this research, data were

only collected on the Fitzroy Region flood damage road reconstruction projects and these

were gathered and analysed to develop the sustainability assessment check list. During this

period, the researcher worked as a project manager in the Department of Transport and Main

Roads (DTMR) in the Fitzroy Region for transport recovery projects.

In early 2011, Queensland transport related infrastructures were damaged by natural disasters

with the estimated damage exceeding $5 billion and the Fitzroy region damage exceeded $1

billion (DTMR, 2011). Approximately 9,170 km of Queensland state-controlled roads and

more than one quarter of the total state-controlled network were damaged (DTMR, 2011).

Three major ports were significantly affected and 29 per cent of the Queensland state rail

network was impacted. In addition, 117 maritime navigational aids were damaged. This

unprecedented scale of damage called for a state-wide response, which is why the Department

of Transport and Main Roads established the Transport Network Reconstruction Program

(TNRP) to reconstruct the flood damaged transport network in three stages. Stage 1


rectification works were undertaken to make the road trafficable and re-open to communities.

The Stage 2 recovery projects were for repair works to keep the road trafficable and safe for at

least one year until proper restorations could be done with proper engineering designs. The

Stage 3 reconstruction program managed all restoration works according to current

engineering standard and applied comprehensive engineering design to recover the transport

network in Queensland. The DTMR (2011) vision for the TNRP is ‘Restoring our flood-

damaged transport networks in a safe, timely and efficient manner to reconnect, rebuild and

improve Queensland’.

There were seven objectives for the TNR Program:

• Coordination across lines of reconstruction: support the economic recovery of industry

and communities through timely completion and prioritization of reconstruction work.

• Resilience: deliver a transport network with greater resilience by following the TNR

Program Guidelines for Reconstruction. DTMR developed a set of Design Guidelines

which identified the necessary standards for NDRRA funded works and also standards for

consideration to improve immunity and resilience.

• Immunity: identify asset enhancement opportunities for infrastructure requiring

reconstruction, focusing on safety and immunity.

• Value for money: achieve demonstrated value for money for the Commonwealth and the

people of Queensland in delivering the transport reconstruction program.

• Timely completion: complete the program and make use of available funding within our

stakeholder’s timeframes.

• Communication and engagement: regularly engage with stakeholders including

communities, industry, Emergency Management Queensland, and the Queensland

Reconstruction Authority to inform our reconstruction priorities and business.

• Transition back to normal business: maintain and enhance DTMR's reputation with

stakeholders and transfer information, systems and knowledge into the department’s

structures.

The Transport Network Reconstruction Program objectives aligned with the Queensland

Government’s Towards Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland, Queensland Reconstruction Authority

(2016) strategic objectives and strategic milestones. Figure 4.2 shows how the Queensland

Government’s ambitions were connected with the transport sector outcomes that would touch

triple bottom sustainability domains.


Figure 4.2: Queensland State and Department of Transport and Main Roads Strategic Goals

(TMR Intranet, 2011)

In some circumstances, the resilience of a resource may be enhanced through a significant

improvement or step change in the nature of that resource, this is called betterment. The

Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA, 2011) describe betterment as

the repair or replacement of an asset, usually buildings or roads, to ‘a more disaster resilient

standard than its pre-disaster standard’. The allowance for ‘current engineering and building

standards’ is intended to allow state and local governments a modest level of flexibility to

utilise contemporary (rather than requiring the use of obsolete or outdated) construction

methodologies and building materials.

Counter Disaster Operations (CDO) activities were undertaken by local and state government

agencies to provide direct assistance to an individual, and for the protection of the general

public, immediately before, during, and in the immediate aftermath of a disaster event. CDO

activities are intended to reduce personal hardship and distress.

Building back better enhanced assets’ immunity to natural disasters. The impact of future

disaster events on the community was consequently substantially reduced.

Betterment of an essential asset is the enhancement of an asset beyond a pre-disaster level of

immunity, resilience, service, or condition where legislation does not require current building

and engineering standards, codes, and guidelines to be followed. For the purposes of this


guideline, betterment costs mean the difference between the cost of restoring or replacing an

essential public asset to its pre-disaster standard, and the cost of restoring or replacing the

asset to a more disaster-resilient standard. According to the determination, betterment is

intended to limit the cost of rebuilding repeatedly damaged infrastructure by allowing

essential public assets to be rebuilt to a more resilient standard where it is cost effective to do

so. In assessing the cost-effectiveness of a betterment proposal, both the financial and

nonfinancial aspects of the proposal may be considered.

Betterment of an asset may be considered eligible if:

• The asset is an essential public asset that has been damaged by an eligible disaster.

• The state and Commonwealth are satisfied with the cost effectiveness of the proposal.

• The state and Commonwealth are satisfied that the increased disaster-resilience of the

asset will mitigate the impact of likely or recurring disasters of the same type.

Betterment should not, however, be limited to infrastructure alone, as it can be demonstrated

or applied to rebuilding the social and economic fabric of disaster affected communities.

(NDRRA, 2011)

When flood damaged reconstruction projects were delivered always considered maximising

the social and economic benefits, while minimising negative impacts to the environment.

Local construction industry jobs were supported by the reconstruction of state roads, local

government roads, and other assets across the state for the financial years following the flood

event. The data shows that the demand for workers was unevenly spread across the state. The

four regions of Fitzroy, Metropolitan, South West, and Far North represented the majority

(58.6 per cent) of all the jobs supported by the reconstruction activities.

The Queensland Treasury economic model provides an indicative view of the contribution of

the reconstruction activities on FTE (full time equivalent) employment in Queensland regions.

The number of FTEs supported does not represent the quantum of new jobs created by

economic activity, rather the impact on employment throughout the economy. Jobs are direct

on-site employment, as well as indirect service provision from the broader economy.

DTMR technical specifications, procedures, design manuals, project policies and tools were

used to deliver road reconstruction projects and complied with government policies and acts.

New designs adopted the 100 year ARI as the defined flood event for areas in the region for


transport planning after flood calamity. Critical community infrastructure used the 200 year

ARI level as a risk management tool requiring higher levels of disaster immunity. The

organisational structure and project delivery operational structure within the legislative

framework also played a vital role in project governance.

In the sector of road reconstruction, many initiatives were implemented to reduce the

ecological footprint of roads and to promote sustainability, not only from an environmental

point of view, but also from a societal one. Engineering and good governance and

management integrated and reinforced the positive outcomes on triple bottom sustainability

domains.

4.3 Case Study 3 - 2015 Severe Tropical Cyclone Marcia in Central Queensland,

Australia

Severe Tropical Cyclone Marcia (TC Marcia) was a Category 5 severe tropical cyclone that

made landfall at its peak strength over central Queensland on 20 February 2015. The cyclone

went on to affect various areas including Yeppoon and Rockhampton. Marcia caused at least

$750 million worth of damage.

Speed is a key principle of disaster recovery and reconstruction for various government

agencies around the world. In Queensland, Australia, the relevant guidelines suggest that

“following an event, effective recovery arrangements should help re-establish resilience

within individuals and communities, and the natural assets that support them, as soon as

possible” (Queensland Recovery Guidelines, 2011). There is a real, as well as perceived, need

for speed and quick results in post-disaster reconstruction projects and it is proposed that

effective time management is required to respond to this need.

The researcher was actively involved from the initial damage assessment to project planning,

designing, and delivery work after the cyclone and currently works as a project manager in

the Rockhampton Regional Council for Cyclone Marcia damaged road restoration projects.

A new set of guidelines was released in February 2016 by the Queensland Reconstruction

Authority (QRA) (2016) to assist in the relief and recovery of communities whose social,

financial, and economic well-being has been severely affected by recent disaster events in

Queensland. Six lines of reconstruction were also established to co-ordinate key aspects of the

reconstruction and recovery effort:


• Human and social;

• Economic;

• Environment;

• Building Recovery;

• Roads and Transport;

• Community Liaison and Communication (QRA, 2016).

According to the QRA (2016) provided guidelines, Cyclone Marcia damaged road restoration

projects have been delivered to maximise the benefits to the local economy, community, and

environment. Restoration of essential public assets to their pre-disaster standard was

undertaken by local and state government agencies to reinstate public infrastructure assets

immediately following the cyclone event. In the case of a road asset, the pre-disaster standard

includes factors such as traffic and vehicle capacity, classification and/or role of the road

within the road network, signage, street parking, road width, and number of lanes. A

condition of assistance for the restoration or replacement of an essential public asset is that

the state has developed and implemented disaster mitigation strategies in respect of likely or

recurring disasters. In line with supporting eligible restoration and reconstruction measures,

applicants are required to achieve an efficient allocation of resources and to ensure that

reasonable measures are being used for restoration and reconstruction projects. The efficient

and reasonable allocation of resources is achieved through a value for money approach that

ensures, as far as practicable, efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness at local and state

levels. Value for money is measured throughout the life of a project from project submission,

design, and delivery, through to completion.

After investigating opportunities for improving the sustainability outcomes in post Cyclone

Marcia infrastructure recovery projects in Queensland, the below table summarizes the key

tasks and their relationships to triple bottom line sustainability domains and other key

elements. These identified key tasks were necessary to achieve successful recovery outcomes

in the areas impacted by TC Marcia and are shown in Table 4.2.


Table 4.2 Key tasks to achieve successful recovery outcomes in the Case Study 3 disaster.

Key Tasks Description Sustainability

dimensions and other

key elements targeted

Provide information and advice

to support local human and

social recovery

Information and advice will be provided to support local governments and other recovery partners to deliver: – practical and material support to assist in clean up; – health and wellbeing responses to assist emotional recovery; – recovery information to individuals and communities; – resilience and capacity building strategies.

Social Sustainability Dimension and community engagement

Deliver personal support and

counselling services in affected

local government areas

Extend non-government partner agencies to deliver personal support and counselling services to individuals directly impacted by TC Marcia to alleviate their personal hardship or distress.

Social Sustainability Dimension and capacity building

Monitor the capacity of services

to respond to the needs of

vulnerable individuals and

community groups who require

support

Work with partner agencies, funded services and local Human and Social Recovery Groups to monitor community capacity. Respond to emerging needs and escalate issues when required.

Social Sustainability Dimension and capacity building

Provide appropriate

accommodation for impacted

social housing tenants

Transitional accommodation arrangements in place for social housing tenancies, pending rectification of property damage.

Social Sustainability Dimension and access to safe shelters

Deliver health services Provide public information and advice on community and public health issues. Provide specialised mental health services

Social Sustainability Dimension and Medicine, medical treatments

Develop a long-term community

recovery fund

Subject to approval from the Australian Government, develop and implement long-term community recovery programs under the NDRRA funds and obtain Australian Government approval. The community recovery fund is designed to assist communities severely affected by a disaster with their medium to long term recovery by providing funding for activities/projects aimed at community recovery, community

Social Sustainability Dimension

Generation of direct and indirect job opportunities for local community groups and disaster affected communities to enhance their financial capacity.


development, community resilience and capacity building for the future.

Maintain consultation and

intelligence gathering with

economic stakeholders

and peak industry bodies

Activate Economic Recovery Group and work with relevant industry groups.

Economic Sustainability Dimension

Support local government

capacity to deliver economic

recovery tasks

Participate in local economic recovery committees. Provide targeted support to work with councils on economic recovery planning and delivery. Work with affected councils to address planning impacts identified through flooding events.


Utilise high resolution aerial

photography to assist with

damage estimates.

Acquire imagery across priority sites identified in the TC Marcia impact zone.


Provide economic recovery

support to primary producers

and business

Deploy regional economic development staff to support affected businesses and local governments. Deliver targeted information to assist business recovery including online information packages. Collate data to assess impacts on small business through the development of an online survey to build a case for activation of assistance for small business under the NDRRA.


Implement a marketing

campaign providing positive

messages about Queensland

tourism

Undertake an intrastate tourism campaign for the Southern Great Barrier Reef destination including publicity and social media activities to promote that it is business as usual in many locations, particularly in the lead up to Easter.


Assess and, where necessary,

utilise planning instruments and

powers for project, land, and

infrastructure development

activities to support economic

reconstruction priorities

Seek to amend, where appropriate, the planning and development programs for industrial land in flood affected areas.


Consult with relevant

government

departments and industry to

investigate ways to improve

resilience in power and

telecommunications

infrastructure to

minimise economic impacts

Investigate ways to improve resilience in power and telecommunications, including taking the opportunity for telecommunications improvements within the regions.


Use online social networking

tools to share information with

businesses

Utilise online social networking tools, including Facebook and Twitter, to disseminate key information about recovery tools and government



services.

Re-open and repair protected

areas (national parks and

forests)

On-ground reporting immediately after the event detailed national parks that were impacted. Damage to nesting sites and foreshore at Mon Repos also recorded.

Environmental Sustainability Dimension

Manage environmental risk

associated with recovery

activities whilst expediting

recovery

Expedited permitting, fee relief and/or granting exemptions for carrying out on-ground recovery works for: – Waste disposal and transport; – Green waste stockpiling and disposal; – Built heritage repairs; – Water discharges due to flooding; – Gravel extraction for repairs to road and bridge approaches; – Reparation to damaged jetties, pontoons and other infrastructure.


Monitoring discharges from

impacted mine sites

Abandoned mines back to pre-cyclone condition and all seepage interception systems fully functional.


Repair critical infrastructure to

support flood warning and

monitoring and water resource

management

Repair and/or replace damaged infrastructure aligned to the approved departmental surface and groundwater monitoring network. Conduct assessment of the level of damage to the department’s surface and groundwater monitoring infrastructure, including the possible need to undertake new cross-sectional surveys to amend rating curves for flow calculations.

Environmental Sustainability Dimension and Engineering and Good Governance

Repair infrastructure on

DNRM-managed state land

Damage to access tracks, fire trails, and fire breaks on DNRM-managed state land due to cyclone damage and associated flooding. Re-establish access tracks and fire trails and breaks that are essential to fire and land management programs to reduce risk to neighbouring property and infrastructure. Conduct assessment of the level of damage to critical infrastructure and develop and implement a repair and reconstruction program.


Riparian restoration and

erosion mitigation works in

Fitzroy catchment

NDRRA extra funding for local groups to undertake works to stabilise and repair flood-affected waterways, including: – removal of flood waste and debris, particularly those threatening the local or downstream



environment or infrastructure; – repairing, stabilising, and rehabilitating flood damaged riparian areas; – building understanding and capacity about managing flood water among landowners; – improving flood and vegetation mapping at regional, local and property levels.

Water quality monitoring in

Fitzroy catchments

Undertake water quality monitoring/sampling in affected catchments to inform environmental and land use management decisions post-event and allow comparison to EHP water quality objectives: – Fitzroy River at Rockhampton – Dawson River at Taroom.


Rural and bush fire hazard

mitigation

Establishment of a locality specific Fire Management Group that involves all stakeholders of the risk to develop a mitigation plan for dealing with the risk generated by the amount of fallen vegetation resulting from TC Marcia.


Provision of immediate and

longer-term temporary

accommodation

Facilitate solutions to address immediate and longer-term temporary accommodation needs of community members. Interface with Human and Social Recovery Group functions.

Social Sustainability

Provision of assistance and

advice to support the repair and

restoration of state owned public

buildings

Assess and coordinate the repair and restoration of state owned public buildings (schools, housing, hospitals, police stations, cyclone shelters, and other). Coordinate, as required, building safety inspection services and securing damaged buildings and structures. Ensure buildings used as evacuation centres and places of refuge have been cleaned and returned to pre-event status. Ensure the Public Cyclone Shelter in Yeppoon has been restored to pre- event status.

Engineering Design and Good Governance

Provision of building advice and

information to support the

community in its recovery

Update to Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) website. Media releases releasing QBCC contact details and referring consumers to the QBCC website. Messaging developed and implemented in relation to the safe disposal of asbestos.



Database of available contractors.

Provision of advice to the

recovery supply chain including

contractors,

subcontractors, and material

suppliers

Support and provide advice to the recovery supply chain including contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers.


Reconnect people and

communities

Deliver the state-controlled roads and transport recovery and reconstruction: – Identify communities isolated and assign resources by priority to recovery works; – Develop regional reconstruction projects and activities in collaboration with stakeholders; – Develop implementation plans for recovery and reconstruction – Develop, review, and submit NDRRA submissions for approval; – Implement recovery and reconstruction plans, including monitoring and reporting; – Program closure, including completing program documentation and transferring learning into continuing department structures and operations.

Social Sustainability and Good Governance

Investigate an allocation of

betterment funding from the

Australian Government through

Category D of the

NDRRA

A joint betterment fund would allow for damaged local government and state assets to be built back with increased resilience during the reconstruction of the asset to reduce future restoration costs. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the productivity Commission’s draft report for the Inquiry into Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements.

Economic and Good Governance

Disaster management policies and programs contributed to the goal of a safer, sustainable

community, helping to ensure that all citizens can live, work, and pursue their appropriate

needs and interests in a safe and sustainable physical and social environment.

The damaged infrastructure have been reconstructed to create an integrated network of roads,

rail, cycle, public transport, and pedestrian infrastructure and are managed to ensure reliable

access to services such as water, waste disposal, and sewerage, relative to the sustainable

service standards is delivered.


Queensland’s comprehensive approach to disaster/emergency management recognised four

types of activities that contributed to the reduction or elimination of hazards and to reducing

the susceptibility or increasing the resilience to hazards of a community or environment:

• Prevention/mitigation activities – which seek to eliminate or reduce the impact of hazards

themselves and/or reduce the susceptibility and increase the resilience of the community

subject to the impact of those hazards.

• Preparedness activities – which establish arrangements and plans and provide education

and information to prepare the community to deal effectively with such emergencies and

disasters as may eventuate.

• Response activities – which activate preparedness arrangements and plans to put in place

effective measures to deal with emergencies and disasters if and when they do occur.

• Recovery activities – which assist a community affected by an emergency or disaster in

reconstruction of the physical infrastructure and restoration of emotional, social, economic

and physical well-being.

Post cyclone infrastructure reconstruction projects were managed in an integrated,

sustainable, and responsible way and reconstructed in a manner that is affordable, well

managed, and fit for purpose. The infrastructure is financially and environmentally

sustainable and was coordinated and planned through community engagement, modelling, and

effective land use planning.


CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The examination of three actual case studies chosen from Australia and overseas, has

confirmed that social, environmental, economic, and engineering and governance are essential

core elements in post-disaster reconstruction process. The intention of this analysis was

therefore to identify the challenges faced by government and aid agencies in delivering road

reconstruction projects unique to the post-disaster sustainability context.

Baroudi et al. (2012) contended that with disaster situations the spectrum of stakeholders is

seen to be vast. That is particularly more so in the affected regions. The range of stakeholders

that would be affected by a disaster from a leadership and management perspective would

include government authorities, emergency services, hospitals, utilities, building regulators,

etc. There would then be other stakeholders that could assist in the efforts and these people

would include engineers, contractors, suppliers, charity groups, private businesses, insurers,

etc. The largest stakeholder group is the actual affected community at large. One other

stakeholder group worthy of note are the various national and international contributors from

outside the affected area.

As the researcher actively participated as an infrastructure advisor/engineer for all three case

study reconstruction projects, it is noted that sound engineering investigations, planning, and

design according to current standards and specifications have enhanced the disaster immunity

of public infrastructure and built the public confidence.

Disaster restoration projects undoubtedly carry significant risk and it could be argued that

they possibly harbour greater risk than conventional construction projects. Hence, project risk

management is critical within disaster restoration work to determine the risk environment.

This involves identification, assessment, mitigation, and control of possible uncertainties

within disaster restoration projects. Risks within disaster restoration projects could be found

in areas such as worker safety, unanticipated works, regulatory hurdles, workforce

availability, and repeat disaster occurrences. Thus, risk management is essentially concerned

with avoiding or managing unwanted situations. Project procurement on the other hand, seeks

to reduce risk by transferring it to third parties. It is principally concerned with the external

sourcing of all goods and services for a project. Disaster restoration projects require adequate

supply lines. The unique aspect with restoration projects is that they are unplanned events;


thus, sourcing all requirements at short notice can produce challenges (Baroudi & Rapp,

2012).

Good governance played a vital role in the post-disaster recovery processes, as it managed

and controlled the reconstruction process operational structures, policies, procedures,

legislative boundaries, and decision making framework. Engineering and good governance

reinforced and enforced the three sustainability core elements identified from the three case

studies. Weighting and priorities given to the post-disaster recovery process on social,

economic, and environmental dimensions changed with the nature of the disaster and key

stakeholder’s capacity and objectives.

The two case studies in Queensland, Australia gave more gravity to social achievements and

environmental improvements, whilst the other case study gave more weighting to socio-

economic enhancements to recover the economic damages lost during the calamity. Table 5.1

shows the sustainability assessment elements extracted from the analysis of the three case

studies. It is noted that the negative impact on the socio-economic sector after a major disaster

is higher in a developing country compared to a developed country.

Table 5.1 summarizes sustainability dimensions and elements targeted on each case study.

This table provides an evaluation of post-disaster restoration delivery strategies, impacts for

triple bottom line sustainability domains, and their benefits.


Table 5.1 Sustainability Dimensions and Key Elements Targeted in Post-disaster Case Studies

Sustainability

dimensions/key

elements

targeted

Post-disaster

Case Study 1

Post-disaster

Case Study 2

Post-disaster

Case Study 3

Remarks/Comments


Access for

essential social

services after

the disaster

After the typhoon disaster, UNDP provided basic community services with government agencies.

SES, QPS, and other emergency services made special arrangements to provide access for education and health services.

LDCC provided health and other basic services with local community organisations.

Community access to education, health, and other basic services were provided by the government and humanitarian organisations.

Sanitation,

health and

safety

International donors and UN provided food, water, shelters, and essential medicines for the affected people.

Queensland Government established a special assistance task force to respond to essential social services demand after the disaster.

Council provided water bottles and potable water tanks for the communities.

Clean drinking water and food supply after the disaster. Medicine, medical treatments, and access to safe shelters were provided.

Community

consultation

Local communities participated from the planning stage to hand over phase in community assets restoration projects.

All road users and key stakeholders were informed about recovery project activities and acknowledged.

Community meetings were conducted to discuss project related issues and concerns.

Community involvement for post-disaster recovery projects in different stages at different levels.

Community

development

and

empowerment

UNDP established a special assistance package to capacity building for vulnerable communities under cash for work and food for work delivery models.

Community empowerment through acknowledgement and involvement.

Capacity building of the local work force. Community meetings arranged for restoration updates and information.

Developed damaged community infrastructure through their involvement and enhanced their financial capacity and empowered them through their participation.

Amenity and

land use

Identified disaster prone lands and mapped using GIS. CLUP is developed as a guideline for the

Lands were acquired to realign the roads to improve flood immunity.

Amenities for transport infrastructure integrated with restoration planning.

Improved amenity and acquisition of lands for reconstruction and flood immunity.


land use and community resettlements.


Efficient

transport

operations

Air and sea transportation used to rescue operations and provide essential goods. Prefabricated bridges and culverts used to expedite reconstruction of road network.

90% of roads reopened with caution within a week and all the roads were functional within four weeks with traffic controlled measures.

Alternative routes and bypass tracks were provided to maintain connectivity for the businesses and communities.

Re-opened the road network and provided an efficient transport system for agriculture, coal, gas, and other industries after the disaster to rebuild the economy.

Value for

money

Opened tender process for procurement activities and made sure there were economic benefits to impactees and community based stakeholders

Portfolio management and funds allocation according to damage assessments and priorities.

Effective allocation of financial resources for restoration activities and progress monitoring.

Benefit cost analysis and multi criteria analysis for post-disaster recovery projects to achieve maximum benefits for money spent.

Creation of

employment

opportunities

for disaster

affected

community

groups

Food for work and cash for work community projects implemented with CBOs and NGOs and local workforce to create jobs and enhance financial capacity.

Local suppliers and contractors used wherever possible to promote and enhance local economy and businesses.

Local contractors/ suppliers received extra 15% weighting on tender evaluation on reconstruction works. On job training opportunities created for local students.

Generation of direct and indirect job opportunities for local community groups and disaster affected communities to enhance their financial capacity.


Debris

removing and

proper

disposal

Reusable building materials were used for temporary shelters and a waste management hierarchy of waste avoidance, waste reuse, waste recycling

Mud, silt, and debris removed and used. LG provided landfills and dumping sites for proper disposal.

Council had special arrangements to dispose of contaminated soil, asbestos, and material to avoid health risks.

Removed all debris from road corridors and adopted a waste management hierarchy of waste avoidance, waste reuse, waste recycling, energy recovery from waste and waste disposal.


was adopted.

Pollution

control

through

reconstruction

Controlled the waste emissions within the assimilative capability of the environment without damaging it during recovery work.

In situ stabilisation and reduced the use of new gravel materials. Minimised inbuilt redundancy.

Abandoned mines back to pre-cyclone condition and all seepage interception systems fully functional.

Avoided or minimised adverse impacts to soil, water, and air through reconstruction projects.

Reuse and

recycle of

material

Balance in consumption/ recycling of resources for restoration projects.

Material durability to fit asset life cycle and used recycled water for restoration projects.

Recycled asphalt pavements used and existing road pavements stabilised.

Minimised demand, use, and impact on scarce resources such as water, gravel, rock, lime, and non-renewable energy products.

Biodiversity

protection

Ecological balance and biodiversity protected throughout the recovery process.

Threatened flora species identified during design stage and nominated site for translocation.

Conservative approach for protective plants was adopted during the reconstruction stage.

Protect bio diversity and habitats for future generations and sustainable eco system during the reconstruction process.


Improved

disaster

immunity

Provided safe, climate-change resilient and permanent public assets.

Damaged transport networks were redesigned and built to Q100 flood immunity.

Damaged transport networks were redesigned and built to Q100 flood immunity.

Designed and rebuilt all possible road related infrastructure with improved flood immunity with proper engineering designs.

Build in to

current

engineering

and safety

standards

Made arrangements to build back better all infrastructure projects damaged by typhoon towards a sustainable development with current engineering guidelines and designs.

All bridges and culverts replaced to accommodate current vehicle loads and dimension classification.

Horizontal and vertical realignment done to improve road safety. Land slips were descaled and reinforced with soil nailing and concreting.

Rebuilt the structures according to current safety and engineering standards.

Innovation and

reengineering

Partially damaged buildings were retrofitted where possible and environmental friendly

Prefabricated culverts and short span bridges used to expedite restoration works.

Debris barriers installed in road corridors to mitigate future risks.

Sought innovative engineering solutions with more sustainable outcomes


solutions were accommodated.

Efficient use of

material and

resources

Local material and skilled workers used to rebuild the affected community assets. UN allocated donor funds for all the sectors effectively to recover from the typhoon damages.

Federal and state government funds were effectively allocated for road reconstruction projects with other resources.

Capital work and routine maintenance resources combined with post-disaster recovery funds and resources to maximise the community benefits and expedite the recovery process.

Efficient and effective use of available resources and fund to rebuild the damaged road related infrastructure.

Good

Governance

This element

reinforces and

enforces the

triple bottom

sustainability

domains

Special procurement guidelines and policies established to respond for the typhoon disaster. Project specific operational structures and management structures were also used to deliver the projects.

Policy and governance elements ensured clear direction of disaster management priorities, resource allocation, and accountability

Supported through sound business continuity, performance reporting, and risk management processes.

Policies, procedures, legislations, enforcement, and functional structure.

The aim of disaster relief, restoration, and reconstruction operations is to mitigate human

suffering and return regions to normality. This is usually a complex undertaking requiring

high levels of management capability and resource availability. Disaster situations have a

great impact on the built environment and this is particularly compounded in the case of

developing countries. This creates a situation where economic and social recovery in those

regions takes many years, with the consequence being the prolonged suffering of inhabitants.

Continuous efforts in developing and improving sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road

infrastructure recovery projects are required when considering the complexity and multi-

disciplinary aspects of post-disaster recovery programs. The investigation of opportunities for

improving sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects and

the development of a sustainability assessment checklist have produced new knowledge

contribution for future researchers and post-disaster recovery stakeholders.


5.1 Developed Checklist and Implications

This research outcome will contribute to post-disaster planning and management, and oversee

the delivery of a safe, efficient, and integrated transport system that supports sustainable

economic, social, and environmental outcomes in post-disaster situations. Checklist categories

and sub-categories cover triple bottom sustainability domains and can be used as criteria for

sustainability assessment. When post-disaster road reconstruction projects are delivered, these

elements and their indicators can be accommodated to have a balanced development.

Reconstruction should be defined, planned, and implemented in stages. Post-disaster

reconstruction projects often deal with complex uncertainties, which is considered one of the

most challenging tasks to manage for those involved in reconstruction of disaster-affected

areas. Therefore, integrated reconstruction management is the key to an accelerated

reconstruction process and to an improved human settlement environment; thus, a successful

project is one delivered on time and managed within the budget. Project management plays an

important role in ensuring that reconstruction projects are completed successfully (Ismail,

Majid, Roosli, & Ab Samah, 2014)

The developed checklist has multiple uses, from the damage assessment phase to the asset

handover stage of post-disaster restoration projects. In all three of the case studies analysed,

the above mentioned checklist elements were used and acknowledged, and the uses may be

varied according to the socio-economic background of the impacted area. This checklist can

be used to optimize positive impacts from public infrastructure recovery projects after

disasters, while minimising avoidable or unnecessary negative impacts and their associated

costs, over relevant space and time scales. The checklist can be used as a policy in a post-

disaster recovery context and will provide sustainable recovery management for government

authorities and key stakeholders.

This research continuation to PhD level research will provide rigor and objectivity to the

development of a sustainability assessment framework for post-disaster road recovery projects

by integrating independent expert’s judgments. Validation by end road project professionals

and sustainability researchers will attain consensus through consultation and to ensure as

much transparency as possible in the indicators development.


CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research study analysed three case studies and their existing disaster recovery strategies

that were implemented to rebuild road infrastructures damaged by natural disasters. Two case

studies were selected from Australia and a third was chosen from the Philippines, which is a

developing Asian country. The researcher actively worked on and was involved in post-

disaster restoration activities in all three of the disaster case studies considered. Case study

analysis shows that successful recovery depends on all recovery stakeholders having a clear

understanding of pre- and post-disaster roles and responsibilities. Interviews and social

validation processes will be undertaken in planned future stages.

It is essential that sustainability should be an integral part of road infrastructure recovery

projects after a disaster, as the tasks of reconstruction after major disasters can be an onerous

challenge. They require the deliberate and coordinated efforts of all stakeholders for effective

and efficient recovery of the affected community. Most actions to achieve sustainable

development will take place at a national or local government level and road authorities have

a major role to ensure that post-disaster road reconstruction activities meet the best possible

sustainable outcomes. Thus, it is necessary to identify critical sustainability factors for post

natural disaster reconstruction and explore the internal relationships among them.

It is therefore very important to develop a checklist for post-disaster reconstruction before it

commences. The aim of this thesis was to develop such a checklist to a certain level and the

social, economic, environmental sustainability, and engineering and governance were the

main elements.

This thesis investigated the notion of sustainable outcomes in post-disaster reconstruction and

outlined the key reasons as to why it is a critical component. The research concluded that

there is a need for a sustainability assessment checklist to improve sustainability outcomes in

post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects and the research outcome is an assessment

checklist for effective management in post-disaster reconstruction to address this need. The

purpose is to clearly identify and follow the approach that government, businesses,

humanitarian agencies, and disaster management professionals can take to successfully

manage post-disaster reconstruction programs.

Table 6.1 shows the sustainability assessment checklist elements derived from case study

analysis according to research methodology.


Table 6.1: Sustainability Assessment Checklist Elements for Post-disaster Reconstruction Projects


Category Description

Access for essential social services following the disaster

Community access to emegency services, education, health, and other basic services provided by the government and private sector.

Sanitation, health, and safety Clean drinking water and food supply after the disaster. Medicine, medical treatments, and access to safe shelters.

Community consultation Community involvement for post-disaster recovery projects in different stages at different levels.

Community development and empowerment

Develop damaged community infrastructure through community involvement and enhance their financial capacity and empower them through their participation.

Amenity and land use Improved amenity, open space preservation and acquisition of lands for reconstruction and improved disaster immunity.



Efficient transport operations Re-open the road network and provide efficient transport system for agriculture, coal, gas and other industries after the disaster to rebuild the economy.

Value for money Benefit cost analysis and multi criteria analysis for post-disaster recovery projects to acheive maximum benefits for money spent.

Creation of employment opportunities for disaster affected community groups

Generation of direct and indirect job oppertunities for local community groups and disaster affected communities to enhance their financial capacity.



Debris removing and proper disposal

Remove all debris from road corridors and adopt a waste management hierarchy of waste avoidance, waste reuse, waste recycling, energy recovery from waste, and waste disposal.

Pollution control through reconstruction

Avoid or minimise adverse impacts to soil, water, and air through the reconstruction projects.

Reuse and recycle of material Minimise demand, use, and impact on scarce resources such as water, gravel, rock, lime, and non renewable energy products.

Biodiversity protection Protect bio diversity and habitats for future generations and sustainable eco system during the reconstruction process.

Engineering Design and Good Governance (This element reinforces and enforces the triple

bottom sustainability domains)


Improved disaster immunity Design and rebuild all possible transport related infrastructure with improved disaster immunity with proper engineering designs.

Build in to current engineering and safety standards

Rebuild the structures according to current safety and engineering standards.

Innovation and reengineering Seek innovative engineering solutions with more sustainable outcomes.

Efficient use of material and Efficient and effective use of available resources and funds to


resources rebuild the damaged transport related infrastructure.

Good Governance Policies, procedures, legislations,enforcement, equity, responsibilities and functional structure.

Separating the evaluation of the developed assessment framework into four dimensions offers

a more hierarchal approach to post-disaster infrastructure restoration sustainability assessment

and will add clarity and a rational framework to any sustainability assessment effort.

This checklist covers all socio economic sectors, including but not limited to, housing,

environmental, business, employment, infrastructure, access to essential health, and social

services, and can be expanded for other sectors. The uses for the checklist include policy

advice and development of interventions for post-disaster recovery cross-sector issues through

stakeholder engagement and social change.

6.1 Recommendations

The post-disaster sustainability assessment checklist has multiple uses, from the planning

phase to delivery and monitoring. In a disaster timeline, the checklist elements are easily

recognised and well established from relief to rehabilitation. The three case studies conclude

the recent recovery efforts and cluster approach to humanitarian action, there is much interest

in developing a recovery assessment checklist to guide recovery planning. This can be used to

optimize social benefits from public infrastructure projects, while minimising avoidable or

unnecessary adverse impacts and their associated costs over relevant space and time scales.

Recommendation 1

The developed check list can be used as a baseline to check the sustainability in post-disaster

restoration projects. This research outcome will integrate sustainable asset management,

governance, and engineering principles that should be followed and adopted in the post-

disaster road recovery sector to maximise sustainability in environmental, social, and

economic dimensions. The three case studies covered engineering, community, and

humanitarian activities in post-disaster situations and implemented community infrastructure

recovery projects to benefit the disaster affected community groups. These projects gave

gravity to social sustainability to empower the community and recover the socio-economic

fabric destroyed by the disasters. These projects could also achieve many intangible outcomes

that cannot be estimated in monetary value. Re-settlement, social empowerment, and

providing employment opportunities to the most disadvantaged, vulnerable community


groups are intangible outcomes, and those indicators must be considered when preparing a

comprehensive sustainability assessment scheme for this type of post-disaster recovery

project in the next stage as a continuation of this research.

Recommendation 2

This checklist can be used for guidance, as a policy or a statutory document, after the stage 5

and 6 validation process. It will then provide considerable support and can be expected to be

accorded appropriate weight in both plan-making and sustainable recovery management for

government authorities and key stakeholders. This checklist is a living document and further

improvements will be produced by collaborative working between the parties involved with

the disaster management organisations. This will lead to a safe, efficient, and integrated

recovery process that supports sustainable economic, social, and environmental outcomes.

Recommendation 3

This checklist tool can be used to deliver and plan post-disaster recovery programs that look

at integrating community services and infrastructures to seamlessly plan and deliver positive

outcomes for vulnerable communities. By using this tool, authorities can also manage an

integrated coordination that ensures effective program reporting, monitoring, benefits

management, risk and issue management, and rehabilitation program governance.

Recommendation 4

This research shall be continued and progressed to develop a sustainability assessment

framework with comprehensive criteria, indicators, and ratings following consultation and

validation by post-disaster recovery sector experts and key stakeholders. These new

sustainability assessment tools will be useful to decision-makers and planners in disaster

management agencies and should contribute to enhancing the planning of reconstruction

efforts for damaged transportation networks following natural disasters.

This thesis has discussed the impacts of post-disaster reconstruction projects on

environmental, economic, and social dimensions. In addition, this thesis has discussed the

issues surrounding the complex and interrelated implementation of reconstruction following

major disasters. Though the existing regulatory frameworks seem to point in the right

direction, more issues have to be addressed in practice. Therefore, this research has developed

a post-disaster sustainability assessment checklist after investigating opportunities for


improving sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects that

rebuild a sustainable future inclusive of ecological, economic, and local capacity

considerations.

6.2 Opportunities for Research Dissemination

After investigating opportunities to improve sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road

infrastructure recovery projects, this research study has presented a sustainability assessment

checklist for post-disaster reconstruction projects to optimize project benefits on triple bottom

line sustainability domains. These tools are effective and efficient and can be used to enhance

the planning process for reconstruction and rehabilitation projects following calamities.

However, a number of future research areas are recommended in order to enhance the

research developments of this study and expand their potential applications with

comprehensive criteria and indicators.

Research outcomes have been communicated to other researchers, industries, and interested

parties to ascertain the validity of research developments through the below mentioned

conference papers published and presented in Australia and overseas within the last four

years.

1. Post-disaster Road Infrastructure Recovery Projects in Queensland - peer reviewed

conference paper was successfully published and presented on 11th August 2012 at

the Engineers Australia Conference at Central Queensland University in

Rockhampton, Australia, 10-12 August 2012.

2. Sustainability in Post-disaster Road Recovery Projects - peer reviewed conference

paper was published and presented at the International Institute for Infrastructure

Renewal and Reconstruction (I3R2) 2013 Conference at QUT Science & Engineering

Centre, Brisbane, Australia, 7-10 July 2013.

3. Post-disaster Road Reconstruction and Asset Management - peer reviewed conference

paper was published and presented at the 4th International Conference on Structural

Engineering and Construction Management on 14th December 2013 and at an

international conference in Kandy, Sri Lanka, 13-15 December 2013.

4. Sustainable Public Infrastructure Asset Management in Post-disaster Recovery

Projects - peer reviewed conference paper was successfully published and presented


on 11th June 2015 at the Second International Conference on Contemporary

Management (ICCM-2015) in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, 11-12 June 2015.

The research outcome checklist has been shared with and acknowledged by research and post-

disaster recovery industry experts through the above mentioned published conference papers

and presentations.

Continuous efforts in developing and improving sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road

infrastructure recovery projects are required when considering the complexity and multi-

disciplinary aspects of post-disaster recovery programs. The investigation of opportunities to

improve sustainability outcomes in post-disaster road infrastructure recovery projects and the

development of a sustainability assessment checklist have produced new knowledge that will

contribute to future research and post-disaster recovery stakeholders.

6.3 Significance and Impact of the Research and Contribution to Knowledge

Ensuring the sustainability of interventions undertaken as part of post-disaster reconstruction

is one of the crucial challenges confronting the post-disaster recovery phase. Within the

disaster context, road infrastructure plays an important role at all three stages of the disaster

cycle; pre-disaster, disaster, and post-disaster. In the pre-disaster stage, which is the

prevention and mitigation phase, well-planned road infrastructure may help avoid or minimise

the disaster impact through application of preventive and adaptive design. Construction of

road infrastructure that may withstand and cope with future disaster will also help to ensure

development sustainability and prevent unnecessary loss from destroyed and non-functional

facilities. During a disaster, this will include the emergency phase and immediate duration;

functioning road networks have been proven to have a major and important role. Transport

disruption into and out of the affected area is considered a vital constraint in providing

efficient response in disaster and post-disaster reconstruction activity (Grünewald et al.,

2010). Not only does a functioning road network save lives by enabling access for

evacuations, it also assists with a speedy distribution of goods and help to the affected area.

Additionally, in the longer-term post-disaster reconstruction stage, the functionality and

serviceability of the transport infrastructure has a great impact on the overall recovery

process. Poor transport infrastructure has been among the factors that have caused an increase

in transportation costs and construction lead-time (Chang et al., 2011) resulting in an increase

of material prices and construction delays. The complexity of a road construction project,

however, is intensified by the chaotic environment and the level of uncertainties involved in


the post-disaster reconstruction context. In turn, this factor may create challenges that are

unique, in context and scale, to road reconstruction post-disaster.

The vulnerability of old transport assets and bridges is exacerbated when they are subjected to

natural disasters that often cause severe disruption to the level of service provided by these

transportation networks (Housner &Thiel, 1995).

This thesis investigated opportunities for improving sustainability outcomes in post-disaster

road infrastructure recovery projects that have environmental, economic, and social

dimensions. The sustainability elements used were also analysed and possible improvements

that could be undertaken to optimize the sustainability of disaster recovery road projects were

discussed.

This research has developed a sustainability assessment checklist for post-disaster road

recovery projects that can be used to develop infrastructure operational strategies and policies

for future road reconstruction projects to optimise sustainable outcomes.

6.4 Future Research Work

Further study will be required to understand the impact of each factor on overall road

reconstruction projects, and in a broader context, the overall post-disaster recovery process.

However, understanding the importance and uniqueness of road reconstruction projects in a

post-disaster context will assist transport agencies and key stakeholders to identify and

sufficiently anticipate these factors in the future.

The knowledge and contribution of this research will be continued to develop a sustainability

assessment framework with comprehensive criteria and ratings following consultation and

validation by post-disaster recovery sector experts and key stakeholders

The final two stages will provide rigor and objectivity to the development of a sustainability

assessment framework for post-disaster road recovery projects by integrating independent

expert’s judgments. This stage has been included to attain consensus through consultation and

to ensure as much transparency as possible in indicator development. For this study, this stage

was considered to be validation by end road project professionals and sustainability

researchers.

Figure 6.1 shows the process in a graphical view.


Figure 6.1: Proposed Sustainability Assessment Framework Development and Validation Process Flowchart Using the Delphi Technique.

The outcome of this process will be a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework for

post-disaster road recovery projects that consists of categories, criteria, and indicators that

cover triple bottom line sustainability domains and any new dimension(s) derived by post-

disaster recovery sector experts and key stakeholders.

Criteria and indicators design for

post-disaster road recovery

projects

Primary verification and validation

Criteria and indicators’ refinement

(Delphi Technique)

Questionnaire finalisation

Develop the assessment framework

with criteria and indicators

(Delphi Technique)

Questionnaire design for post-disaster

road recovery project experts/agencies


REFERENCES

AGIC. (2012). Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool, Version - 1.0. Australian Green

Infrastructure Council, Australia.

Angus, L. (2005). New Zealand's Response to the 1994 Yokohama Strategy and Plan of

Action for a Safer World. At: World Conference of Disaster Reduction, Kobe-Hyogo,

Japan.

Australian Asphalt Pavement Association. (2011). AAPA Pavements Training & Advisory

Centre- Sustainability Concepts. August, 2011.

Australian Green Infrastructure Council. (2011). Fact Sheet 2. AGIC Publications.

Austroads. (2010). Impact of Climate Change on Road Performance: Updating Climate

Information for Australia. Austroads Pub. No. AP-R358/10, Sydney.

Austroads Pavement Research Group. (1999). Technical Note 10. Austroads.

Baroudi, B., & Rapp, R. (2013). Disaster Restoration Projects: A Conceptual Project

Management Perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney).

CEEQUAL. (2012). The Assessment and Awards Scheme for Improving Sustainability in

Civil Engineering and the Public Realm, Version- 4.1. CEEQUAL Ltd., UK.

Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Seville, E., & Potangaroa, R. (2010). Resourcing for a resilient

post-disaster reconstruction environment. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in

the Built Environment, 1(1), 65-83.

CIA. (n.d). The World Factbook – Roadways [Online]. Available:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2085.html[Accessed].

Council of Australian Governments. (2011). Building our nation's resilience to natural

disasters. Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities

Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. (2011). Climate Change Risks to

Coastal Buildings and Infrastructure.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2013). Nation Building Program. Australia.

Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2011). Transport Network Reconstruction

Program. Queensland.

English version of a paper originally published in the Journal of the Japan Medical

Association. (Vol.141, No.1, 2012, pages 61–65).


Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2015). National Disaster Recovery

Framework (NDRF). USA.

Gasimova, E. E. (2014). The Damages Caused to Automobile Roads by Natural Disasters

and the Measures of Protection in Azerbaijan Republic. International Journal of Business,

Humanities and Technology. Vol. 4 No.1. January, 2014.

Gavrilescu, M. (2011). Sustainability. In: Editor-in-Chief: Murray, M.-Y. (ed.)

Comprehensive Biotechnology (Second Edition). Burlington: Academic Press.

Greenroads. (2011). Manual, V1.5. University of Washington, USA.

Griffiths, K. A. (2007). Project Sustainability Management in Infrastructure Projects. 2nd

International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science. Auckland, New

Zealand.

Harper, I., Ergas, H., Shaw, R., Simes, R., Matthews, K., & McGinn, E. (2013). Building our

nation’s resilience to natural disasters. Kingston ACT: Australian Business Roundtable

for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities, Deloitte.

Hayat, E., & Amaratunga, R. D. G. (2011). Road reconstruction in post-disaster recovery; the

challenges and obstacles. University of Salford.

Housner, G. W., & Thiel, C. C. (1995). The continuing challenge: report on the performance

of state bridges in the Northridge earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 11(4), 607-636.

Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR). (2014). Issue Brief: Disaster Risk Reduction

and Sustainable Development. New York. 6-10 January, 2014.

Invest. (2011). Integrated VicRoads Envrionment Sustainablity Tool, Version - V1. VicRoads.

NSW, Australia.

Ismail, D., Majid, T. A., Roosli, R., & Ab Samah, N. (2014). Project Management Success for

Post-Disaster Reconstruction Projects: International NGOs Perspectives. Procedia

Economics and Finance, 18, 120-127.

Jigyasu, R. (2004, April). Sustainable post-disaster reconstruction through integrated risk

management–the case of rural communities in South Asia. In Proceedings of the 2004

International Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction

“Planning for reconstruction”. 22-23 April.

Le Masurier, J., Rotimi, J. O. & Wilkinson, S. (2006). A comparison between routine

construction rather than post-disaster reconstruction with case studies from New Zealand.


Lepert, P. & Brillet, F. (2009). The overall effects of road works on global warming gas

emissions. Transportation Research Part D, 14, 576-584.

Lim, S. K. (2009). Framework and Processess for Enhancing Sustainability Deliverables in

Australian Road Infrastructure Projects. Ph. D., Queensland University of Technology,

Brisbane.

Lincoln Istitute of Land Policy. (n.d) The Road to Recovery: Governing Post-Disaster

Reconstruction. (Land Lines Article)

Litman, T. (2007). Developing Indicators For Comprehensive And Sustainable Transport

Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transport Research Board, 10-

15.

Litman, T. (2011). Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable

Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 8 June 2011.

MacAskill, K. & Guthrie. (2015). Planning and design in the recovery of infrastructure

networks – a study of Christchurch’s post�earthquake reconstruction. 7th i-Rec

Conference 2015: Reconstruction and Recovery in Urban Contexts.

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. (2005). Recovery Management

Guidelines. New Zealand.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Infrastructure to 2030

(Vol. 2): Mapping Policy for Electricity, Water and Transport. OECD Publishing.

Palliyaguru, R. S., Amaratunga, R. D. G., & Haigh, R. P. (2006). Review of impact of post-

tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation of infrastructure facilities. University of

Huddersfield.

Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement, Hoballah, A., & Peter, C. (2012).

Sustainable, resource efficient cities: making it happen!. UNEP.

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future

1987 http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. (2008). Toward Q2 Tomorrow's

Queensland Policy. Queensland Government.

Queensland Reconstruction Authority. (2016). Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements

Guidelines. Queensland Government. Retreived from http://qldreconstruction.org.au


Santero, N., Loisjos, A., Akbarian, M., Ochesendorf, J., Hub, C. S., & Room, M. 2011.

Methods, Impacts, and Opportunities in the Concrete Pavement Life Cycle. Report for

Concrete Sustainability Hub.

Santero, N. J., Masanet, E. & Horvath, A. 2011. Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I:

Critical review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55, 801-809.

Santos. (2015). Santos Sustainability Report 2015: Leading Gas Producers and Suppliers

Web. Retreived from https://www.santos.com/media/3312/2015_sustainability_report.pdf

Schwab, J. (Ed.). (2014). Planning for post-disaster recovery: Next generation.

Secretariat, M. J. (2012). Effective Post-Disaster Reconstruction of Infrastructure:

Experiences from Aceh and Nias.

Shaw, G., Walters, R., Kumar, A., & Sprigg, A. (2015). Sustainability in infrastructure asset

management. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Engineering Asset

Management (WCEAM 2012) (pp. 525-534). Springer International Publishing.

Soderlund, M., Muench, S. T., Willoughby, K., Uhlmeyer, J., & Weston, J. (2008). Green

Roads: A Sustainability Rating System for Roadways. Transportation Research Board

Annual Meeting 2008 Paper #08-0803.

Stripple, H. (2001). Life Cycle Assessment of Road: A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis.

Second Revised Edition ed. Stockholm, Sweden.

Sullivan, M. (2003). Integrated Recovery Management: A new way of looking at a delicate

process. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 18(2), 4-27.

Sustainability. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Transportation Research Board. (2004). Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation

Planning Process Baltimore. Conference Proceedings 37, Maryland July 11–13, 2004.

UNDP Philippines. (2014). UNDP supports typhoon recovery and resilience in the Visayas.

Retrieved from

http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/presscenter/typhoon-haiyan--

yolanda-.html

United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013)

https://www.ipcc.ch/

UNEP. (2012). Sustainable Reconstruction in Disaster-Affected Countries. Retrieved from

http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/PracticalGuidelines_SustainableReconstruction.pdf


Wilmot, T. D., & Wilmot, S. D. (2003, May). Strategies for Sustainable Roads. In

Proceedings of Conference of the Australian Road Research Board, ARRB Transport

Research, Cairns, Australia (pp. 801-808).

World Bank. (2008). Good Practice Notes – 10 GPN. Infrastructure Planning.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPSIA/Resources/GPN_August08_final.pdf

World Highways. (2016). Sustainable road construction: current practices and future

concepts. Retrieved from http://www.worldhighways.com/categories/asphalt-paving-

compaction-testing/features/sustainable-road-construction-current-practices-and-future-

concepts/

Yi, H., & Yang, J. (2014). Research trends of post-disaster reconstruction: The past and the

future. Habitat International, 42, 21-29.

investigating opportunities for improving sustainability … · 2016. 11. 29. · investigating...

Documents